Shea v. Board of Aldermen

434 N.E.2d 214, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1300
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedApril 22, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 434 N.E.2d 214 (Shea v. Board of Aldermen) 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
Shea v. Board of Aldermen, 434 N.E.2d 214, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1300 (Mass. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

The plaintiff’s application for a special permit under [1047]*1047§ 18/II/5 of the zoning ordinance is deemed to have been granted by operation of law under G. L. c. 40A, § 9 (as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, § 3), because the board of aldermen, acting as the special permit granting authority under the ordinance (G. L. c. 40A, §§ 1A [inserted by St. 1977, c. 829, § 3A] and 9), failed to render or file with the city clerk within ninety days of either of the public hearings on the application (compare Building Inspector of Attleboro v. Attleboro Landfill, Inc., 384 Mass. 109, 110-111, 112, 114 [1981]) a “decision” of the type contemplated by G. L. c. 40A, §§ 11 (as most recently amended by St. 1979, c. 117), 15 (as appearing in St. 1975, c. 808, § 3) and 17 (as most recently amended by St. 1978, c. 478, § 32). See Gaunt v. Board of Appeals of Methuen, 327 Mass. 380, 381-382 (1951); Spaulding v. Board of Appeals of Leicester, 334 Mass. 688, 690-692 (1956); Opie v. Board of Appeals of Groton, 349 Mass. 730, 733 (1965); Richardson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375, 377 (1966); Lane v. Selectmen of Great Barrington, 352 Mass. 523, 526-527 (1967); Shuman v. Aldermen of Newton, 361 Mass. 758, 762-763, 764-765 (1972). See also Foster from Gloucester, Inc. v. City Council of Gloucester, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 293-296 (1980). The judgment is to be modified by striking therefrom the words “City Clerk” and substituting in place thereof the words “The board of aldermen” and, as so modified, is affirmed.

Richard J. Kos, City Solicitor, for the defendants. John F. Wagner for the plaintiff.

So ordered.

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

Related

Board of Aldermen v. Maniace
711 N.E.2d 565 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1999)
Board of Aldermen v. Maniace
702 N.E.2d 391 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1998)
Kenrick v. Board of Appeals of Wakefield
543 N.E.2d 437 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 N.E.2d 214, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-board-of-aldermen-massappct-1982.