From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shea v. Board of Aldermen of Chicopee

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Apr 22, 1982
13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)

Summary

In Shea, a rescript opinion, the Appeals Court determined that the board's filing of a decision which consisted of a copy of the petitioner's application for a special permit, and included the notation "10/7/80: Lost by a role call vote of 1 yes, 11 no," did not constitute "a 'decision' of the type contemplated by G.L.c. 40A, § 11... and 17," and thus a constructive grant of the application resulted.

Summary of this case from Board of Aldermen of Newton v. Maniace

Opinion

April 22, 1982.

Richard J. Kos, City Solicitor, for the defendants.

John F. Wagner for the plaintiff.


The plaintiff's application for a special permit under § 18/11/5 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.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Shea v. Board of Aldermen of Chicopee

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Apr 22, 1982
13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)

In Shea, a rescript opinion, the Appeals Court determined that the board's filing of a decision which consisted of a copy of the petitioner's application for a special permit, and included the notation "10/7/80: Lost by a role call vote of 1 yes, 11 no," did not constitute "a 'decision' of the type contemplated by G.L.c. 40A, § 11... and 17," and thus a constructive grant of the application resulted.

Summary of this case from Board of Aldermen of Newton v. Maniace

In Shea v. Board of Aldermen of Chicopee, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046, 1047 (1982), we observed that the board had constructively granted a special permit because it had "failed to render [its decision] or file with the city clerk within ninety days of either of the public hearings on the application.

Summary of this case from Kenrick v. Board of Appeals of Wakefield
Case details for

Shea v. Board of Aldermen of Chicopee

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD F. SHEA vs. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CHICOPEE another

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Apr 22, 1982

Citations

13 Mass. App. Ct. 1046 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)
434 N.E.2d 214

Citing Cases

Board of Aldermen of Newton v. Maniace

The board appealed, pursuant to G.L.c. 40A, § 17, from the notice of constructive grant. A judge in the Land…

Board of Aldermen of Newton v. Maniace

It claims that there is nothing in § 9, eleventh par., that prescribes the contents of the decision filed…