Kreger v. Public Buildings Commissioner of Newton

234 N.E.2d 283, 353 Mass. 622, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 701
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 6, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 234 N.E.2d 283 (Kreger v. Public Buildings Commissioner of Newton) 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
Kreger v. Public Buildings Commissioner of Newton, 234 N.E.2d 283, 353 Mass. 622, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 701 (Mass. 1968).

Opinion

Whittemore, J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the public buildings commissioner of Newton to enforce a zoning ordinance and cause the inter-vener, Luther Paul Co. (Paul), to cease a use of premises at 35-47 Paul Street, in a Business B district, alleged to violate *623 the ordinance. The judge made findings, ruled that Paul was not violating the ordinance, and ordered the petition dismissed. The record includes designated parts of the transcript of evidence. At issue is whether the ordinance expressly permits the new use and, if not, whether the new use can be supported as an enlargement without essential change of a nonconforming or permitted use.

Paul has done business at the locus since 1891. Its business, for the relevant period prior to a change in 1963, had become “the storage and sale of fuel oil and service to consumer customers.” It had and has three fuel storage tanks found to hold 58,000 gallons but according to the evidence having a present total effective capacity of 56,000 gallons.

In 1963 Paul entered into an arrangement with Northeast Petroleum Company of Chelsea (Northeast) whereby certain of Northeast’s retail distributor customers fill their fuel oil tank trucks at the locus and Northeast delivers the oil for its customers and the oil for Paul into Paul's three tanks. Paul is compensated for the use of its tanks by a commission based on Northeast’s sales. Since 1963 the “sale and delivery” of oil at the locus has been primarily (eighty-eight per cent to ninety per cent) to Northeast’s customers. Paul’s clerical office is on Union Street, some distance from the locus. The volume of the oil received and delivered is recorded at the locus. Paul controls there the “degree day card deliveries.” Paul reports daily to Northeast the meter readings, the inventory, and the gallons delivered both to Paul and to others. Northeast bills from Chelsea.

The 1963 change was followed by a very large increase in the amount of oil passing through the tanks. Paul’s deliveries in December, 1962, for its own customers totaled 163,342 gallons. In December, 1965, the deliveries totaled 1,381,104 gallons of which 144,139 were for Paul’s customers. About forty companies are approved to take fuel; over a thirty-four months period about eighty-seven per cent of the total was taken by the ten largest users including Paul.

We rule that the new use of the premises is as a distribution plant for a wholesale oil business. Commonwealth v. *624 Greenwood, 205 Mass. 124. See Cochran v. Roemer, 287 Mass. 500, 508; Evansville v. Gaseteria, Inc. 51 F. 2d 232, 237 (7th Cir.). The customers of Northeast who fill their trucks at the plant are undoubtedly retailers. But the oil is not in Paul’s tanks as a part of their business.

We turn to the ordinance (§ 25-10) to determine whether this wholesale use is among the specified, permitted uses. These include, as a use permitted in Business A districts, “Stores, salesroom or showroom for the conduct of retail business, but not for the sale of motor vehicles.” 1 Even if this provision permitted tank storage for a retail business, it would not support the present wholesale operation.

Another category permitted by § 25-10 2 3456is “(a) . . . (1) *625 Wholesale business or storage warehouse.” The judge, quoting this section, ruled that if Paul’s present use is deemed to be wholesale rather than retail it is a use specifically permitted by the ordinance. In the light of the entire ordinance, we think this conclusion is -unjustified.

The context indicates certain limitations on the breadth of the words "wholesale business.” Section 25-11 states what is permitted in Limited manufacturing districts. The categories include the uses permitted in Business B districts (except most residences) and, among a number of other uses, "Wholesale distribution plants.” The structure of the use sections of the ordinance shows an intent specifically to name as permitted only those uses not already authorized in a more restricted section and included by the reference back to that section.

We need not determine all that is included in the rather cryptic phrase "wholesale business or storage warehouse.” We think in any event it does not include the use of premises for the "distribution plants” of a wholesale oil business. Assuming that subsection (a) (1) of § 25-10 permits two different categories of business (that is, [1] wholesale business and [23 storage warehouse) the association of the categories in the one specification suggests that not every type or aspect of wholesale business is permitted. This tends to confirm the other indications of §§ 25-10 and 25-11 read together that that part of a wholesale business which is the operation of a distribution plant is not permitted in Business B districts. Section 25-11 3 by implication shows that *626 many wholesale businesses that involve manufacture are excluded from the phrase “wholesale business” in § 25-10.

At the locus the distribution is the dominant aspect, not the storage, so that § 25-11 is apt. The classification for zoning purposes of an oil distribution station with light manufacturing appears logical. The conduct of the station involves the operation of pumps. There is on Paul Street, in common speech, a “plant, ” that is, tanks to hold oil, with necessary valves and vents, pumping machines, meters, and loading and unloading bays for the oil trucks. The other uses specifically listed in § 25-11 bear a closer general resemblance to the operation now conducted at the locus than those in § 25-10.

Assuming, as do the parties, the legality of Paul’s prior use, however based, the judge ruled that there had been no essential change in use. We disagree. Burlington v. Dunn, 318 Mass. 216, 223-224. Inspector of Bldgs. of Burlington v. Murphy, 320 Mass. 207, 210 (review of cases). Seekonk v. Anthony, 339 Mass. 49, 52-54. Brady v. Board of Appeals of Westport, 348 Mass. 515, 523-524, and cases cited. Bridgewater v. Chuckran, 351 Mass. 20, 23-24. Compare Cochran v. Roemer, 287 Mass. 500, 507 (excluded by later cases [see Seekonk case, supra] as a general authority inasmuch as it arose under special statutes applicable to *627 Boston); Wayland v. Lee, 325 Mass. 637, 643-644; Building Commr. of Medford v. McGrath, 312 Mass. 461; Medford v. Marinucci Bros. & Co. Inc. 344 Mass. 50, 60.

For zoning purposes, there was a change in the kind of use.

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

Related

Cosco-Guido v. Mulhern
20 Mass. L. Rptr. 35 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2005)
Oakham Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Town of Oakham
763 N.E.2d 529 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2002)
Michaud v. United States Fire Insurance
11 Mass. L. Rptr. 61 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1999)
Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown
529 N.E.2d 159 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1988)
Mahoney v. City of Chelsea
20 Mass. App. Ct. 91 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Vokes v. Avery W. Lovell, Inc.
468 N.E.2d 271 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1984)
Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Board
431 N.E.2d 213 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Salah v. Board of Appeals of Canton
314 N.E.2d 881 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Powers v. Building Inspector of Barnstable
296 N.E.2d 491 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 N.E.2d 283, 353 Mass. 622, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreger-v-public-buildings-commissioner-of-newton-mass-1968.