Town of Rowley v. Kovalchuk

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Town of Rowley v. Kovalchuk

747 N.E.2d 97, 434 Mass. 1006, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 209

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 747 N.E.2d 97 (Town of Rowley v. Kovalchuk) 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

Town of Rowley v. Kovalchuk, 747 N.E.2d 97, 434 Mass. 1006, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 209 (Mass. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review in this case that was decided in the Appeals Court by an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Rowley v. Kovalchuk, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2000). The case involves the lawfulness, under applicable zoning laws and regulations, of the defendant’s use of his land for the operation of a sawmill. The case is an appropriate one for summary judgment. The nature of the question in controversy — the lawfulness of the use — is intensely fact specific. Based on the undisputed material facts set forth by the Superior Court judge in her written memorandum of decision, we agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Appeals Court that the defendant’s operation of the sawmill is not lawful as incident to a permitted agricultural use. The permanent injunction barring the defendant from operating a sawmill at the site is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review in this case that was decided in the Appeals Court by an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Rowley v. Kovalchuk, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2000). The case involves the lawfulness, under applicable zoning laws and regulations, of the defendant’s use of his land for the operation of a sawmill. The case is an appropriate one for summary judgment. The nature of the question in controversy — the lawfulness of the use — is intensely fact specific. Based on the undisputed material facts set forth by the Superior Court judge in her written memorandum of decision, we agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Appeals Court that the defendant’s operation of the sawmill is not lawful as incident to a permitted agricultural use. The permanent injunction barring the defendant from operating a sawmill at the site is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 N.E.2d 97, 434 Mass. 1006, 2001 Mass. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-rowley-v-kovalchuk-mass-2001.