The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOMMONWEALTH OF MASS SUPERIOR COURT - .TM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.' OFFICEOFTHE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT SALEM LAWRENCE. y KEVIN M.BURKE ONE BROWN STREET COURT `TELEPHONES - LAWRENCE 685-3581 District Attorney SALEM,MA-01970 SALEM 745-6610 November 15, 1979 41fQ b- Clerk ons Town Hall Main Street North Andover, Mass. 01845 Dear Mr. Lyons : I am enclosing copies of a letter from District Attorney Kevin M. Burke to all members of "governmental bodies" as defined in General Laws, Chapter" 39 , section 23A: , "Governmental Body every board, commission, committee. or subcommittee or any district,_, city, region or town; however elected, ap- pointed or otherwise constituted, and the governing board of --a local housing redevelop- ment or similar authority. " _ s - The purpose. of the enclosure is to notify those con cerned of a seminar on the Open Meeting Law to be conducted . by the District Attorney' s Office in December, 1979. e r I would appreciate it if you would distribute copies of this notice to the appropriate officals.. Sincerely, T a - BARBARA DEMPSEY 1 ' Public Information Officer District Attorney' s Office One Brown Street Court Salem, Mass. 01970 Enclosures' 'ra BD/pb R fv V of e l g L° = , THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS = OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT SALEM = LAWRENCE KEVIN M.BURKE ONE BROWN STREET COURT TELEPHONES District Attorney SALEM,MA.01970 - LAWRENCE 685-3581SALEM 745-6610 November 15, 1979 Dear City or Town Officials In December, the Office of the District Attorney will sponsor a seminar on the effect and application of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. - I will be conducting the seminar along with Assistant District Attorney Dyanne Klein Polatin, who will speak and answer questions. As District Attorney for Essex County I am empowered . to enforce the Open Meeting Law. Since all elected, appointed and volunteer officials of Essex' County ' s 34 cities and towns must conduct their meetings in accordance with this law, ,I believe it is essential that members of all of our county' s governmental bodies meet with me and representatives of my office to discuss the statute and" its enforcement. - Details concerning the- seminar (i.e. time,' place, exact date) will be forthcoming. Our concern at this time is , gauging- interest in such a program, and to that end we would appreciate a letter at. your earliest convenience indicating whether you. or your representative will be attending this seminar. t F Please address any questions"or correspondence. to Public Information Officer, Barbara Dempsey at my office One Brown Street Court, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970. sincerely, 1 09 r - KEVIN M. BURKEr. : District Attorney encl KMB/pb COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. Superior Court, Sitting at Salem without juries, Dewing, J. January 2, 1962, TRIAL CALENDAR On Tuesday, January 2, 19611 at la A.M., the Court will consider such motions and other interlocutory matters as have been specially marked for that day. All suchmatters will be disposed of by the Court on that day, in their order, and all counsel interested should be prepared to present them when they are reached by agreement or otherwise. THE FOLLOWING CASES WILL BE IN ORDER AND MUST BE READY FOR TRIAL ON THE SPECIFIC DATES INDICATED HEREON, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IN ORDER, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, at 10 A.M. 1 C.W.Trombly 13456 Hayes,et al v O'Leary,et als,Zontng Board of Town of North Andover,et als 2 D.T.Doyle 13470 Liani,et al v Mbott et als,Board of Appeals of City of Salem,et als P.Strome,for China Sails,Inc. 3 Sherin&Lodgen 11650 All States of Virginia,IncorD, v Donovan,ot al E.B.Cass (L.F(bavis) 4 Foley&Carey 12771 Lally,et ali v Bornstein,et al MTPrendergast 5 Foley&Carey 12772 Lally,et ali v Dolan,et al Darlingg&McLaughl.47 6 C.L.Arnold 13176 Suburban Coat,Apron&Linen Supply Co. ,Inc. v &;rnstein E.R.Butterworth 7 D.J.Horgan,Jr. 12184 Horgan,Jr. ,Adm' r. v Sadowski W.E.O'Brine: M.Kowalski 8 Goldman&Goldman 120242 Mayflower Home Constbuction Corp. v Spinney,Jr. ,et al Sriberg&Glassman 9 Sriberg&Glassman k-Mid1s. )237019 Spinney,Jr. ,et al v Mayflower Home Construction Corp.Goldman&Goldmar 10 J.D.Goodman 12789 Petit,et al v Petit,et al Dangel&Sherry IN ORDERS THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, at 10 A.M. At 10 A.M. , on this day, the Court will assess the damages in the Following cases where defaults have been entered. Counsel appear- ing for the plaintiff in each case should be present, with witness--'., p-Tenared for trial, and if not present, the Court will enter a nor- t"� Counsel should be prepared to file the affidavit regd- Chap.231, s.58a in cases where defendant has been defaulted f failure to enter an appearance and where such defendant is covered by a motor vehicle policy. No assessment will be made i.uatil the expiration of 4 days after plaintiff has given notice of default to the company issuing such motor vehicle policy, and as filed an affidavit thereof. 11 A.H.Feingold MVT 118528 Hampe,Jr. v Brooks Pro se 12 A.H.Fuingold MVT 118826 Hampe,Jr. v Hampshire,Inc. 13 Kaza.rosian&Allison MVT 120454 McCusker,et ali v Sweet MShyavitz -2- IN ORDER, THUFtBMY, JANUARY 4, at 10 A.M. 14 J.F.McKay 13180 Pelletier,et al v Tremarco Corp.,et als Lyne,Woodworth&Evarts:REScott 15 L.Kobrin 13360 Brotherhood Credit Union v Kossivas,at al B.A.Glosband 16 S.Sandler 13319 Mallihe Claim&Survey,Ine. vvNewHampsh�relns. Company,et al LTCare,Jr.AAMPrato ly E.T.Johnson 120695 Johnson v Parisi TJBurke,Jr. :SSandler 18 M.Herbster 120559 Modern Leathor&Finishing Co. , Inc. v Underwriters at Lloyd's,London Burke,Monaghan&MeGrath 19 Katz&Kaplan 121533 Farnsworth v Sunlight,Inc . S. Sandler 20 J.A.Todisco 121794 Freezer Owner' s Supply Corp. v Lewis,et al 21 Kileyc%;Weber 121561 Hilton v John Hancock Mutual.Lifeband ins.Co. Lyne,Woodwortb & E. 17_7 S,r' V q 'Yr4VA DISTRICT #5 OFFICE AG6 MArL[ RTR[[T. DANV[R• 01923 DRIYEWAY STANDARDS ON STATE HIGHWAYS January 16, 1976 John F. Coady, Chairman Board of Selectmen No. Andover, ;;Mass. 01845 Dear Sir: Under date of November 10, 1965 the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works forwarded a letter requesting all cities and towns in the Commonwealth not to issue a building permit to owners of prooerty abutting State Highway until any necessary permit for driveways or street entrances to State Highways had been issued by this Department. This letter is a follow-up of the November 10, 1965 letter in order to keep each city or town aware of the foregoing after the inaugural of new municipal officials. Will you please bring this information to the attention of your building inspector or any other interested party. Very truly yours, Sherman. Eidelman District Highway Engineer GHB:fk cc: RTT _ JFK r ,j / uiu6law i 01109 FRANCIS W.SARGENT Govrmo, LEWIS S. W.CRAM"ON COMMISSionw November 269 1974 To those concerned with land use controls: I am pleased to let you know that the Department of Community Affairs is reinstating the PUBLIC LAW MEMOS under the new titles of ZONING MEMORANDUM and SUBDIVISION MEMORANDUM. These memos will be issued periodically as need and/or interest requires. DCA recognizes the need for continuing assistance to local planning boards, regional planning agencies, and other parties interested in land use controls; and over the past several months we were particularly impressed with the strong sentiment expressed at the local level for a renewal of this publication series. We also are continuing to entertain requests for technical assistance in zoning and subdivision control, and we welcome your inquiry. DCA hopes that you find these memoranda to be timely, stimulating, and helpful. Should questions arise as a result of your review of these memos, please feel free to contact this office (617/727-3253) at your convenience. Very truly yours, Victor N. C amara Director Office of Municipal Planning and Management Division of Community Services VNC:sc 1/9/31 f ZONING _ Memorandum rP Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs �M ,! Office of Municipal Planning and Management 141 Milk Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 NUMBER 1 NOVEMBER 1974 This is the first issue of one of two new series of MHWs on matters of interest to municipal officials and others concerned with land use controls. These ZONING MEMOS, and the SUBDIVISION MEMO series, replace the somewhat broader PUBLIC LAW MEMO you may have .received in the past. Issues will appear periodically as need and/or interest require, and it is hoped you will find the publications timely, stimula- ting, and helpful, SUMMARY This is a brief review of the major historical landmarks in the development of .zoning law. It also includes references to the most significant Massachusetts statutes. It seems fitting to open the zoning coverage with a_ little history of zoning in terms of its major events and dates. In our next issues, we'll give you excerpts from the two classic zoning cases, Euclid v. Ambler and Nectow v. Cambridge, and then move on to the more current developments. If we define zoning to mean "the regulation of the use of private and public land and buildings, imposed and enforced by government for the public good", then zoning goes back a long way in the history of human affairs. For example, the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law, drafted in about . 450 B.C. , required property owners to observe set-backs from their property lines for houses, retaining walls, graves, pits, wells, paths and trees. i° -2- Y Romans also used what we call "zoning" to keep industry out of central areas, to prevent the projection of buildings into streets, and to limit the height of buildings. So the basic idea of zoning, that of regulating the use of real property for the public good, dates back to the days of antiquity. However, the immediate ancestry of our present zoning system dates back only a few centuries. One authority, Metzenbaurp, believes that use zoning really began with a Napoleonic decree in 1810 and the Prussian Code of the mid-1800's. Another, Yokley, dates zoning from German statutes of 1884 and French regulations of 1853. However, out of deference to our historical legacy of English Law, maybe we should trace zoning back to much earlier English statutes, such as an act of 1581, which regulated the location of iron mills around London and provided for the protection of certain forests in the vicinity. ' From England in the 16th century, we have a direct historical connection to Massachusetts and Chapter 23 of the Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1692, which provides that certain officials of Boston, Salem and Charlestown assign locations for the erection of slaughter-houses and houses for the "trying of tallow and the currying of leather" as the only permissible locations for these activities. Subsequently, of course, land use regulations of all sorts appeared in the various American colonies; and in Europe, cities in Italy, Germany, and Scandinavia were adopting "zoning" regulations by the 1800's. Perhaps the earliest Massachusetts statute incorporating a general authorization for municipal zoning (as opposed to one specifying the regulated uses) was Chapter 243, Acts of 1872, which authorized cities and towns into districts for such purposes. Philip Nichols, however, felt that the history of zoning in the United States really stems from Chapter 419, Massachusetts Acts of 1892, a building law applicable to the whole city of Boston, and designed to discourage "sky-scrapers" by imposing a maximum building height limit of 125 feet. In 1898 and 1899, even lower height limits were enacted for buildings near Copley Square and the State House, respectively and in 1904 3oston was divided into districts for building height purposes. Partly as,a result of favorable court decisions on these Boston building height regulations, the New York State legislature in 1914 granted to the City of New York the power to adopt comprehensive zoning regulations. A zoning commission was appointed, and, apparently greatly influenced by maps and ordinances imported from Germany, drafted and saw adopted in 1916 a zoning ordinance which is generally regarded as epoch-making. The first complete and comprehensive system of building control in the United States, it provided for three separate classes of districts, and set forth regula- tions as to use, height and land coverage which were applicable throughout the city. With extraordinary rapidity after 1916, hundreds of municipalities all over the country adopted similar regulations, pursuant to enabling legisla- tion adopted in many states. In 1918, the Massachusetts Constitution was r -3- Amended by Article 60 to authorize the General Court to "limit buildings ac,!ording to their use or construction to specified districts of cities or towns." In 1919, representatives of Cambridge, Newton and Milton submitted to the General Court a bill delegating to the cities and towns the General Court's power to enact zoning regulations. Upon receiving from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court an opinion that such an enabling act was constitutional, the General Court passed our first zoning enabling actin 1920 (Chapter 601) . A special act for Boston was passed in 1924. Meanwhile, in the early 1920's when Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce of the United States, he appointed an advisory committee to draft a Standard State Zoning Enabling Act.. The 1926 revision of that model act became the basis for the zoning statutes in many states, and affected later revisions of the 1920 Massachusetts Zoning Enabling Act. During the 10 years following the adoption in 1916 of the New York City zoning ordinance, there were court tests of the constitutionality, both state and federal, of zoning in more than a dozen states, with mix_d results. Finally, in 1926, the-United States Supreme Court decided the case of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. , and held that the Euclid Zoning district classifications were constitutional on their face, a decision which became the foundation of all later zoning opinions in state courts. Having warned in Euclid that zoning provisions constitutional on their face might still be invalid in their application, the U, S. Supreme Court in 1928 held in Nectow v. Cambridge that the application of the Cambridge regulations was not in fact constitutional. Since then, nat many zoning challenges have reached the U. S. Supreme Court, and state cases have followed the Euclid - Nectow pattern of examining both the face validity and the actual application if municipal zoning laws. In Massachusetts, the 1920 zoning enabling act was replaced in 1933 by a more extensive statute (Chapter 269 of 1933) which reflected the recommendations of the Commerce Department's Standard Zoning Enabling Act of 1926. Again in 1954, the Massachusetts enabling act was extensively revised, and became a separate chapter (40A) in the General Laws. Currently, House Bill No. 2522 of 1974 represents the latest effort at a comprehensive revision of th ! Zoning Enabling Act to meet what are perceived by planners as new kinds or challenges resulting from population growth and housing technology. 1474 will also see the completion of a new Model Land Development Cole from the American Law Institute. Euclid next time. MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS Governor - - I WILLIAM G.FLYNN SaaNary NOTICE OF MEETINGS CHAPTER 774 - EXCLUSIONARY ZONING LAW Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 (now General Laws, Chapter 40B, SS. 20-23 inclusive) is providing a method for Housing Authorities, private developers and non- profit a encies to build housing for low and moderate income people in suburban towns and cities throughout the Commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the law is valid and has widely ex anded the power of local Boards of Appeals and the State Housing Appeals Committee to override zoning and other local restrictions against multi-family housing in the suburbs. This seminar will provide full information concerning the Exclusionary Zoning Law and will answer the legal and practical problems faced by local officials when a developer files an appeal for a Comprehensive Permit to build in an area where a proposal violates the zoning law of the community or other local restrictions. Participants: Maurice Corman, J.D. , Chairman, Massa- chusetts Housing Appeals Committee C. Wesley Dingman, Architect, Member of the Housing Appeals Committee John J. Carney, J.D. r Counsel, Housing Appeals Committee c r CHAPTER 774 - EXCLUSIONARY ZONING LAW Locations of meetings: 1. Thursday, April 3, 1975 Sheraton Rolling Green Motor Inn 4: 00 - 6:00 P.M. Large Blue Room = Route 93 Andover, MA 2. Thursday, April 10t 1975 Sheraton Lincoln Motor Inn 4: 00 - 6:00 P.M. Mandarin Room Worcester, MA 3.. Thursday, April 24, 1975 Colonial Hilton Inn 4: 00 - 6: 00 P.M. Berkshire North Room Pittsfield, MA 4. Thursday, May 1, 1975 Holiday Inn 4:00 6 :00 P.M. Westgate Drive Brockton, MA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R E G I S T R A T I O N , Please return to: Office of Training Department of Community Affairs 141 Milk Street Boston, MA' 02109 (617) 727-6964 NAME ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO: Will Attend: Meeting No. 1 III Meeting No. 2 III Meeting No. 3 S Meeting No. 4