Keville, J.
This is a bill in equity brought in the Superior Court to restrain the erection and maintenance of two billboards on certain premises in Pittsfield. The defendant Maurice Callahan & Sons, Inc. (Callahan) demurred to and answered the bill while the defendant Outdoor Advertising Board (the board) filed only an answer. The demurrer was overruled by a judge of the Superior Court and Callahan claimed an appeal. The case was referred to a master, who filed a report to [126]*126which no objections were made and, on the plaintiff’s motion, an interlocutory decree confirming the master’s report was entered by another judge of the Superior Court. The second judge then reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court which transferred it to us pursuant to G. L. c. 211A, § 12.
We treat the report as having been filed under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 31, whereunder a judge of the Superior Court “by whom a case is heard for final decree may reserve and report the evidence and all questions of law therein for the consideration of the full court . . ..” Accordingly, we interpret the second of the two questions specifically set forth in the report — asking to what, if any, relief the plaintiff is . entitled upon the facts contained in the master’s report — as bringing before us all questions of law argued by the parties. The answer to the first question in the judge’s report, viz., whether Callahan’s demurrer was properly overruled, is encompassed in our discussion of the second question. Therefore, we assume that the first question is properly before us although the demurrer was overruled by a judge other than the one who signed the report. Cf. John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C. M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 272-273 (1941); Plante v. Louro, 345 Mass. 456, 458 (1963).
Facts alleged in the bill, which are admitted by stipulation, and additional facts found by the master are as follows: On July 8, 1969, the board voted to amend its regulations pursuant to G. L. c. 93, § 29 (as amended through St. 1958, c. 143),1 by the insertion of a new [127]*127section, 9K, prohibiting the issuance by the board of any permit for a billboard, sign or other device except in conformity with applicable municipal ordinances or bylaws. The vote of the board recited that it was to become “effective on filing of a copy hereof with the Secretary of the Commonwealth pursuant to . . . [G. L. c. 30, § 37].” The text of the vote, including § 9K, is set forth in the margin.2 A copy of the vote was filed on [128]*128July 23, 1969. To it, however, was appended a certification by the board secretary “that the Outdoor Advertising Board voted on July 8, 1969 to adopt the foregoing Rules and Regulations and further that on July 23, 1969 I filed a true copy of these Rules and Regulations with the Secretary of State, together with a citation of the law by authority of which these regulations were adopted, to become effective August 15, 1969” (emphasis supplied).
On July 30, 1969, Callahan filed applications with the board for permits for the two billboards which are the subject of the plaintiff’s bill. Each of the billboards was to be six hundred square feet in area advertising an off-premises use. Under the Pittsfield zoning ordinance applicable to the district in which the billboards were to be located, the maximum permissible size of any billboard was one hundred and sixty-five square feet, and no billboards advertising an off-premises use appear to have been permissible regardless of size. Notwithstanding the size of the billboards the city council of Pittsfield, having been notified by the board of the pendency of Callahan’s applications, voted to approve the same on August 12, and so advised the board.3 The board voted its approval of the applications on September 30, so advised the Pittsfield authorities on October 1, and issued permits for [129]*129the two billboards dated October 3. The billboards were erected and in place by January 5, 1970.
The plaintiff, an abutter of the premises on which the billboards were erected, brought this bill under G. L. c. 93, § 31 (as amended through St. 1955, c. 584, § 7),4 contending that § 9K of the board’s regulations was in effect when Callahan filed its applications, that the permits were granted in violation of that regulation, and that Callahan’s billboards were therefore erected unlawfully and subject to removal under G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4).
We find no merit in the defendants’ contention that the certification of the board’s secretary served to postpone its effective date to August 15, 1969. Section 9K had become effective prior to the date of Callahan’s applications. Under G. L. c. 30A, § 5 (as appearing in St. 1954, c. 681, § 1), such regulations “become effective upon filing [with the Secretary of the Commonwealth ], unless a later date is required by any law or is specified by the agency in the regulation” (emphasis supplied). Authority to adopt the regulation vested exclusively in the board. G. L. c. 93, § 29. The board and not its secretary was authorized to specify a later effective date under G. L. c. 30A, § 5; and its intention was manifest in the first paragraph of its vote adopting the regulation. (See fn. 2.) Therefore, the secretary’s addendum to his certification of the board’s vote, indicating a later effective date, was gratuitous and is not to be viewed as evidence of action taken by the board to postpone the effective date of § 9K. See Oakes v. Hill, 14 Pick. 442, 448 [130]*130(1833); Commonwealth v. Richardson, 142 Mass. 71, 74 (1886).
There is no substance to the second contention advanced by Callahan (but not by the board) that no relief can be afforded the plaintiff because the billboards are not a nuisance at common law. The plaintiffs bill is not based on a common law concept but on a very different concept of “nuisance” embodied in G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4).
Callahan next contends that the plaintiff is barred by its failure to exhaust administrative remedies available to it under G. L. c. 93, § 29A (as inserted by St. 1955, c. 584, § 5).5 However, neither § 29A nor the board’s regulations make provision for notification to anyone but a city or town when an application is received or a permit granted. There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the plaintiff knew of Callahan’s applications until the permits had been issued and the installation of the billboards had begun. Assuming, without deciding, that the plaintiff had standing to file an [131]*131objection to the applications and to demand a public hearing thereon under the first sentence of § 29A (see fn. 5), it is clear that the plaintiff could not have appealed from the issuance of the permits to the board under the second sentence of that section. The plaintiff’s remedy under § 29A was at best so illusory that it would have been unreasonable to require that the plaintiff resort to it as a prerequisite to judicial relief. Cf. Boston Edison Co. v. Selectmen of Concord, 355 Mass. 79, 84 (1968); Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 276-277 (1972).
Callahan also contends that the bill will not lie for the reason that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is through a bill under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (as amended through St. 1968, c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Keville, J.
This is a bill in equity brought in the Superior Court to restrain the erection and maintenance of two billboards on certain premises in Pittsfield. The defendant Maurice Callahan & Sons, Inc. (Callahan) demurred to and answered the bill while the defendant Outdoor Advertising Board (the board) filed only an answer. The demurrer was overruled by a judge of the Superior Court and Callahan claimed an appeal. The case was referred to a master, who filed a report to [126]*126which no objections were made and, on the plaintiff’s motion, an interlocutory decree confirming the master’s report was entered by another judge of the Superior Court. The second judge then reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court which transferred it to us pursuant to G. L. c. 211A, § 12.
We treat the report as having been filed under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 31, whereunder a judge of the Superior Court “by whom a case is heard for final decree may reserve and report the evidence and all questions of law therein for the consideration of the full court . . ..” Accordingly, we interpret the second of the two questions specifically set forth in the report — asking to what, if any, relief the plaintiff is . entitled upon the facts contained in the master’s report — as bringing before us all questions of law argued by the parties. The answer to the first question in the judge’s report, viz., whether Callahan’s demurrer was properly overruled, is encompassed in our discussion of the second question. Therefore, we assume that the first question is properly before us although the demurrer was overruled by a judge other than the one who signed the report. Cf. John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C. M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 272-273 (1941); Plante v. Louro, 345 Mass. 456, 458 (1963).
Facts alleged in the bill, which are admitted by stipulation, and additional facts found by the master are as follows: On July 8, 1969, the board voted to amend its regulations pursuant to G. L. c. 93, § 29 (as amended through St. 1958, c. 143),1 by the insertion of a new [127]*127section, 9K, prohibiting the issuance by the board of any permit for a billboard, sign or other device except in conformity with applicable municipal ordinances or bylaws. The vote of the board recited that it was to become “effective on filing of a copy hereof with the Secretary of the Commonwealth pursuant to . . . [G. L. c. 30, § 37].” The text of the vote, including § 9K, is set forth in the margin.2 A copy of the vote was filed on [128]*128July 23, 1969. To it, however, was appended a certification by the board secretary “that the Outdoor Advertising Board voted on July 8, 1969 to adopt the foregoing Rules and Regulations and further that on July 23, 1969 I filed a true copy of these Rules and Regulations with the Secretary of State, together with a citation of the law by authority of which these regulations were adopted, to become effective August 15, 1969” (emphasis supplied).
On July 30, 1969, Callahan filed applications with the board for permits for the two billboards which are the subject of the plaintiff’s bill. Each of the billboards was to be six hundred square feet in area advertising an off-premises use. Under the Pittsfield zoning ordinance applicable to the district in which the billboards were to be located, the maximum permissible size of any billboard was one hundred and sixty-five square feet, and no billboards advertising an off-premises use appear to have been permissible regardless of size. Notwithstanding the size of the billboards the city council of Pittsfield, having been notified by the board of the pendency of Callahan’s applications, voted to approve the same on August 12, and so advised the board.3 The board voted its approval of the applications on September 30, so advised the Pittsfield authorities on October 1, and issued permits for [129]*129the two billboards dated October 3. The billboards were erected and in place by January 5, 1970.
The plaintiff, an abutter of the premises on which the billboards were erected, brought this bill under G. L. c. 93, § 31 (as amended through St. 1955, c. 584, § 7),4 contending that § 9K of the board’s regulations was in effect when Callahan filed its applications, that the permits were granted in violation of that regulation, and that Callahan’s billboards were therefore erected unlawfully and subject to removal under G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4).
We find no merit in the defendants’ contention that the certification of the board’s secretary served to postpone its effective date to August 15, 1969. Section 9K had become effective prior to the date of Callahan’s applications. Under G. L. c. 30A, § 5 (as appearing in St. 1954, c. 681, § 1), such regulations “become effective upon filing [with the Secretary of the Commonwealth ], unless a later date is required by any law or is specified by the agency in the regulation” (emphasis supplied). Authority to adopt the regulation vested exclusively in the board. G. L. c. 93, § 29. The board and not its secretary was authorized to specify a later effective date under G. L. c. 30A, § 5; and its intention was manifest in the first paragraph of its vote adopting the regulation. (See fn. 2.) Therefore, the secretary’s addendum to his certification of the board’s vote, indicating a later effective date, was gratuitous and is not to be viewed as evidence of action taken by the board to postpone the effective date of § 9K. See Oakes v. Hill, 14 Pick. 442, 448 [130]*130(1833); Commonwealth v. Richardson, 142 Mass. 71, 74 (1886).
There is no substance to the second contention advanced by Callahan (but not by the board) that no relief can be afforded the plaintiff because the billboards are not a nuisance at common law. The plaintiffs bill is not based on a common law concept but on a very different concept of “nuisance” embodied in G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4).
Callahan next contends that the plaintiff is barred by its failure to exhaust administrative remedies available to it under G. L. c. 93, § 29A (as inserted by St. 1955, c. 584, § 5).5 However, neither § 29A nor the board’s regulations make provision for notification to anyone but a city or town when an application is received or a permit granted. There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the plaintiff knew of Callahan’s applications until the permits had been issued and the installation of the billboards had begun. Assuming, without deciding, that the plaintiff had standing to file an [131]*131objection to the applications and to demand a public hearing thereon under the first sentence of § 29A (see fn. 5), it is clear that the plaintiff could not have appealed from the issuance of the permits to the board under the second sentence of that section. The plaintiff’s remedy under § 29A was at best so illusory that it would have been unreasonable to require that the plaintiff resort to it as a prerequisite to judicial relief. Cf. Boston Edison Co. v. Selectmen of Concord, 355 Mass. 79, 84 (1968); Ouellette v. Building Inspector of Quincy, 362 Mass. 272, 276-277 (1972).
Callahan also contends that the bill will not lie for the reason that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is through a bill under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (as amended through St. 1968, c. 637, § 1) for judicial review of the board’s decision granting the permits. Reliance is placed on Selectmen of Truro v. Outdoor Advertising Bd., 346 Mass. 754 (1964), and Building Inspector of Northampton v. Springfield Advertising Co., 353 Mass. 763 (1968), in which bills brought under G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4) were ordered dismissed for that reason. Those cases, however, are not controlling here. The bills involved in those cases were brought by officials of towns which, unlike the present plaintiff, had effective administrative remedies under G. L. c. 93, § 29A (see fn. 5) which they failed to utilize. In addition the plaintiffs in those cases sought to enforce municipal by-laws rather than regulations of the board6 and G. L. c. 93, § 31, confers equity jurisdiction only as to the latter. We find nothing in the cases cited by Callahan which would foreclose the plaintiff, perforce a stranger to the board’s proceedings, from equitable relief even if it were conceded that the plaintiff had standing as an “aggrieved” person to challenge its proceedings under G. L. c. 30A, § 14.
[132]*132The central issue is whether the plaintiffs bill falls within the purview of G. L. c. 93, § 31 (see fn. 4). No contention is made that the plaintiff is not an “interested party” within the meaning of § 31. Callahan appears to argue, however, that the billboards were not “erected or maintained in violation of any rule, or regulation, adopted by the board.” This contention has already been dealt with to the extent that it is based on the assumption that § 9K of the board’s regulations did not take effect until after Callahan’s application had been filed. Unlike the Truro and Northampton cases, supra, the present one was brought after the board had imposed upon itself “a flat mandate” to issue no permit except in conformity to applicable zoning ordinances and by-laws. John Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Board, 361 Mass. 746, 752 (1972). Nor does the action of the Pittsfield city council in purporting to approve Callahan’s applications excuse the violation of § 9K of the board’s regulations. Nothing in the record supports the hypothesis that the statutory requirements for amending the pertinent zoning ordinance or for granting a variance or special permit were met. See G. L. c. 40A, § 4 (as amended through St. 1966, c. 199), § 6 (as amended through St. 1968, c. 194), § 17 (as amended through St. 1968, c. 366). We conclude that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to entertain the bill, and to grant equitable relief based upon the findings of the master.
In oral argument before this court Callahan advanced the further contention that the case had become moot by the adoption of a new zoning ordinance by the city-council of Pittsfield, after the case had been reported, under which billboards are permissible in the district in which Callahan’s are located if approved by the city council. The existence and terms of the new ordinance, insofar as pertinent to the facts of this case, have been stipulated by the parties and we therefore treat the issue as properly before us. See Russell v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 181, 182 (1939). The [133]*133pertinent section of the new ordinance, however, contains a proviso that no such billboard “shall exceed twenty-five (25) by twelve (12) feet in size.” The fact that each of Callahan’s billboards is twice that size is sufficient to dispose of the contention of mootness.
Our answer to the judge’s first question is that the defendant Callahan’s demurrer was rightly overruled. Our answer to the second question is that a final decree with costs is to be entered in the Superior Court enjoining the defendant Callahan from continuing to maintain the subject billboards in accordance with the second prayer of the plaintiff’s bill.
So ordered.