Holbrook v. Board of Selectmen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Holbrook v. Board of Selectmen

238 N.E.2d 366, 354 Mass. 769, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 962

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 6, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 238 N.E.2d 366 (Holbrook v. Board of Selectmen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holbrook v. Board of Selectmen, 238 N.E.2d 366, 354 Mass. 769, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 962 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Holbrook appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the selectmen to issue a building permit for a dwelling on each of two adjoining lots. A brook crosses each lot, parts of which lie within “flood control limits” shown on a subdivision plan. The selectmen refused the permits until Holbrook should construct a retaining [770]*770wall along the brook the entire width of the lots. Holbrook took no appeal (see building code, art. 7, § 40) to the town’s board of appeals. No provision of the zoning by-law or of the building code appears expressly to authorize the selectmen to impose the retaining wall condition. The evidence is reported but there were no findings. Holbrook was properly denied relief by mandamus because of failure to exhaust his administrative remedy (see e.g. Church v. Building Inspector of Natick, 343 Mass. 266, 268-269) by appeal from the selectmen’s action. They are the permit issuing authority under the town’s building code (art. 4, § 1), and act after receiving the building inspector’s written recommendation. See Karl V. Wolsey Co. Inc. v. Building Inspector of Bedford, 324 Mass. 419, 420-422. Cf. Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Commn. of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 472-473. We do not reach the question whether, because mandamus is discretionary (see Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy. 348 Mass. 107, 119-120, cert. den. 380 U. S. 955), relief could have been denied in any event on the basis of Holbrook’s possible failure to take action under other statutes. See e.g. G. L. c. 131, § 117C, inserted by St. 1965, c. 220, and as amended by St. 1966, c. 276.

Eugene L. Tougas for the petitioner. John Clark Wheatley for the respondent.

Order dismissing petition affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Holbrook appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the selectmen to issue a building permit for a dwelling on each of two adjoining lots. A brook crosses each lot, parts of which lie within “flood control limits” shown on a subdivision plan. The selectmen refused the permits until Holbrook should construct a retaining [770]*770wall along the brook the entire width of the lots. Holbrook took no appeal (see building code, art. 7, § 40) to the town’s board of appeals. No provision of the zoning by-law or of the building code appears expressly to authorize the selectmen to impose the retaining wall condition. The evidence is reported but there were no findings. Holbrook was properly denied relief by mandamus because of failure to exhaust his administrative remedy (see e.g. Church v. Building Inspector of Natick, 343 Mass. 266, 268-269) by appeal from the selectmen’s action. They are the permit issuing authority under the town’s building code (art. 4, § 1), and act after receiving the building inspector’s written recommendation. See Karl V. Wolsey Co. Inc. v. Building Inspector of Bedford, 324 Mass. 419, 420-422. Cf. Fellsway Realty Corp. v. Building Commn. of Medford, 332 Mass. 471, 472-473. We do not reach the question whether, because mandamus is discretionary (see Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy. 348 Mass. 107, 119-120, cert. den. 380 U. S. 955), relief could have been denied in any event on the basis of Holbrook’s possible failure to take action under other statutes. See e.g. G. L. c. 131, § 117C, inserted by St. 1965, c. 220, and as amended by St. 1966, c. 276.

Eugene L. Tougas for the petitioner. John Clark Wheatley for the respondent.

Order dismissing petition affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 366, 354 Mass. 769, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holbrook-v-board-of-selectmen-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack