Rhoads v. Blume

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Rhoads v. Blume

386 N.E.2d 34, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 863, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1250

DecidedFebruary 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 386 N.E.2d 34 (Rhoads v. Blume) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhoads v. Blume, 386 N.E.2d 34, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 863, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1250 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence adduced in the Superior Court was insufficient to warrant a finding that pursuit of the occupation proposed to be instituted in the barn would constitute a "use ... clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for residential... purposes,” as required by § V A 9 a of the zoning by-law. See Needham v. Winslow Nurseries, Inc., 330 Mass. 95, 101 (1953) ("An incidental... [864]*864use under a zoning law is a use which is dependent on or pertains to the principal or main use”); Harvard v. Maxant, 360 Mass. 432, 438 (1971). Contrast Sacco v. Inspector of Bldgs, of Brockton, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 749 (1975). The judgment is reversed, and a new judgment is to be entered which annuls the decision of the board of appeals as in excess of its authority.

John M. Kahn for the plaintiffs.

So ordered.

William M. Shattuck for the defendant. Louis Kerlinsky, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.

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

The evidence adduced in the Superior Court was insufficient to warrant a finding that pursuit of the occupation proposed to be instituted in the barn would constitute a "use ... clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for residential... purposes,” as required by § V A 9 a of the zoning by-law. See Needham v. Winslow Nurseries, Inc., 330 Mass. 95, 101 (1953) ("An incidental... [864]*864use under a zoning law is a use which is dependent on or pertains to the principal or main use”); Harvard v. Maxant, 360 Mass. 432, 438 (1971). Contrast Sacco v. Inspector of Bldgs, of Brockton, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 749 (1975). The judgment is reversed, and a new judgment is to be entered which annuls the decision of the board of appeals as in excess of its authority.

John M. Kahn for the plaintiffs.

So ordered.

William M. Shattuck for the defendant. Louis Kerlinsky, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 34, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 863, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhoads-v-blume-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack