Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 168 Pleasant Street t Location f ��0 C► . No. 0 Date �- ! "00tTol TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER °? • °� , „ Certificate of Occupancy $ # Building/Frame Permit Fee �+&S�cNuE�� Foundation Permit Fee $ s �. Other Permit Fee $ Sewer Connection Fee $ 4 Water Connection Fee $ TOTAL $ 1 I wilding InspeQlor X17/03/96 JP9"4 PAID `' " Div. Public Works i PERafIT NO. -36 ( APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO BUILD — NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. PAGE \ 'MAP +40. 0700 LOT NO. 2 RECORD OF OWNERSHIP (DATE BOOK PAGE _ _ ZONE SUB DIV. LOT NO. Olin + Trustee of r —IQul�)— LOCATION 16 - Pleasant Street PURPOSE OF BUILDING Medical Office Space ..-._. ....-. .: .. ...:.:...::.:.:..::.: OWNER'S NAME John J. Willis Trusee of Pleasant t NO. OF STORIES 1 slz,e 2600 S.F. OWNER'S ADDRE uSc 160 Pleasant St. , No. Andover BASEMENT OR SLAB Basement ARCHITECT'S NAME John J. Brennan Associates SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS IST 2X10 2ND 3RD BUILDER'S NAME Ari una Construction Co. , Inc. SPAN DISTANCE TO NEAREST BUILDING 401 DIMENSIONS OF SILLS 4x6 DISTANCE FROM STREET 9t-6't POSTS Lally 1 s DISTANCE FROM LOT LINES-SIDES 301-011 REAR 151-011 GIRDERS 10 AREA OF LOT 25,000 S.F. FRONTAGE 2201 HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION 81 THICKNESS 1211 15 SUILDIt11G NEW No SIZE OF FOOTING O 2411 X 1211 IS BUILDING ADDITION No MATER:AL OF CHIMNEY Brick IS BUILDING ALTERATION YES IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND Solid WILL BUILDING CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF CODE Yes IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN WATER YeS BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION..IF ANY None IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN SEWER Yes 18 BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE Yes INSTRUCTIONS 3 PROPERTY INFORMATION LAND COST SEE BOTH SIDES EST. BLDG. COST 78,000 PAGE 1 FILL OUT SECTIONS t - 3 EST. BLDG. COST PER SQ. FT. $30.00 PAGE 2 FILL OUT SECTIONS f - 12 EST. BLDG. COST PER ROOM SEPTIC PERMIT NO. ELECTRIC METEPS MUST BE ON OUTSIDE OF BUILDING 4 APPROVED BY ATTACHED GARAGES MUST CONFORM TO STATE FIRE REGULATIONS PLANS MUST BE FILED AN�DVED Y B ILDING INSPECTOR D E ED Ane 1 � wlLallva IHSPccro� SIGNA WNER OR AUTHdAIZVDL4QtNT FEE 1 `' �-�� OWNER TEL d (508) 635-3551 PERMIT GRANTED CONTR.TEL 1 (508) 683-9127 7,( ,» '� � CONTR.LIC.1 028147 H.I.C.1 .PERMIT NO. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO BUILD — NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. PAGE > > MAP 4d0. LOT NO. 2 RECORD OF OWNERSHIP (DATE BOOK ;PAGE ZONE SUB DIV. LOT NO. �I LOCATION 1,2 PURPOSE OF BUILDING - L- OWNER'S NAME d 7^ CT rus 140. OF STORIES SIZE OWNER'S ADDRESS % ecS 7- BASEMENT OR SLAB ARCHITECT'S NAME" C i,�� ` `, fQ', SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS IST nwa 2ND 3RD BUILDER'S NAME 'l " I ��r r S SPAN OC, DISTANCE TO NEAREST B IIDING fiD / DIMENSIONS OF SILLS CSC X -L- DISTANCE FROM STREET / POSTS / JJx� DISTANCE FROM LOT LINES-SIDES 30 t-01l REAR /// GIRDERS /1•+C/ /6 17 AREA OF LOT �J�Q60 G-rr FRONTAGE C�1 � / HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION /i / THICKNESS IS BUILDING NEW nC 7.�1 n C� SIZE OF FOOTING •7 '�P% IS BUILDING ADDITION 'yam MATERIAL OF CHIMNEY 4ffj/C ,(/ IS BUILDING ALTERATION IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND,\ c7 i WILL BUILDING CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF CODE Y,S IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN WATER Y.-,s BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. IF ANY IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN SEWER ye IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE INSTRUCTIONS 3 PROPERTY INFORMATION LAND COST SEE BOTH BIDES EST. BLDG. COPT DCI L* PAGE i FILL OUT SECTIONS 1 - 3 EST. BLDG. COST PER SQ. FTS dV PAGE 2 FILL OUT SECTIONS 1 - 12 EST. BLDG. COST PER ROOM SEPTIC PERMIT NO. ELECTRIC METEPS MUST BE ON OUTSIDE OF BUILDING 4 APPROVED BY ATTACHED GARAGES MUST CONFORM TO STATE FIRE REGULATIONS PLANS MUST BE FILED AND APPROVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR DAT ED BUILDING INSPiCTO! SIGNA L @-0 -LWR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT F E E OWNER TEL.X Ri PERMIT GRANTED CONTR.TEL X 9 CONTR.LIC.X BUILDING RECORD 1 OCCUPANCY 12 SINGLE FAMILY S*OI±IES THIS SECTION MUST SHOW EXACT DIMENSIONS OF LOT AND DISTANCE FROM - - - - MULTI. FAMILY OFFICES LOT LINES AND EXACT DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS. WITH PORCHES. GA- APARTMENTS RAGES. ETC. SUPERIMPOSED. THIS REPLACES PLOT PLAN. CONSTRUCTION 2 FOUNDATION B INTERIOR FINISH CONCRETE d' 1 2 13 CONCRETE BL K. PINE BRICK OR STONE PIERS PIASTER DRY V/All UNFIN. 3 BASEMENT AREA FULL FIN. B M T AREA _ FIN. ATTIC AREA _ NO BMT FIRE PLACES _ HEAD ROOM MODERN KITCHEN 4 WALLS I 9 FLOORS CLAPBOARDS B 1 2 3 DROP SIDING CONCRETE WOOD SHINGLES EARTH _ ASPHALT SIDING HARD»D ASBESTOS SIDING commcN VERT, SIDING ASPH. TILE _ STUCCO ON MASONRY STUCCO ON FRAME BRICK ON MASONRY ATTIC STRS. d FLOOR BRICK ON FRAME CONC. OR CINDER BLK. STONE ON MASONRY WIRING STONE ON FRAME SUPERIOR (� NIR _ ADEQUATE E 5 ROOF 10 PLUMBING GABLE 1_11 HIP BATH 13 FIX.) GAMBREL _ MANSARD TOILET RM. (2 FIX.) FLAT SHED WATER CLOSET _ .. ASPHALT SHINGLES LAVATORY _ WOOD SHINGES KITCHEN SINK SLATE NO PLUMBING _ TAR & GRAVEL STALL SHOWER _ ROLL ROOFING MODERN FIXTURES TILE FLOOR TILE DADO g FRAMING 11 HEATING WOOD JOIST PIPELESS FURNACE FORCED HOT AIR FURN. TIMBER BMS. 6 COLS. STEAM STEEL BMS. 6 COLS. HOT W'T'R ORVAPOR WOOD RAFTERS AIR CONDITIONING RADIANT H'T'G UNIT HEATERS I GA _.. 7 NO. OF ROOMS :. _,. .: ,.. `',..:........:....... ...::::::::.. OIL B'M'T 2nd _ ELECTRIC lyI 3rd NO HEATING 168-180 Pleasant Street Waiver of Section 8.3 of the Zoning Bylaw - Site Plan Review The Planning Board herein WAIVES the requirements of Section 8.3 of the Zoning Bylaw- Site Plan Review as set forth in Section 8.31(3) of the Zoning Bylaw. The waiver request was submitted by John J. Willis, Jr., Attorney for Pleasant Street Trust on May 30, 1996 for property = located at 168-180 Pleasant Street. The project involves interior renovations of the portion of the property formerly occupied by Eaton Apothecary. Findings of Fact: 1. There will be no modification of the structure beyond its existing footprint. 2. The proposed use, the expansion of an existing doctor's office, will be a less intensive use than the previously existing pharmacy. The proposed use requires less parking spaces and will produce less traffic than the previously existing use. 3. The amount of impervious surface will not increase however a dry well will be installed to take drainage from the roof leaders on the existing building to provide mitigation of that storm water runoff. 4. There are no wetlands on the site. 5. There is an existing sign which will be renovated according to the needs of the expanded doctor's office and is in accordance with the current sign bylaw. 6. The site is limited in terms of areas available for landscaping. A planter will be placed between parking spaces number 7 and 8. Foundation plantings will be utilized between the building and the parking spaces numbered 1 through 6. 7. Appropriate lighting will be placed on the exterior of the building in a manner consistent - - with the current lighting. All lighting must be downcast and must not shine onto abutting properties. 8. The applicant has submitted the following plan containing all of the basic requirements of an official site plan: Proposed Parking Plan for Land in North Andover, Mass. Prepared for Loretta Willis Scale: F'= 20' Date: June 4, 1996 Prepared by: Christiansen& Sergi a) Summer Street b) Haverhill, MA 01830 r 9. Any revisions to a development that has secured site plan review waiver shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review. If the revisions are determined to be substantial and materially different by the Town Planner, the Town Planner shall direct the applicant to resubmit the site plan to the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of this section. Decision: Given the above Findings of Facts, the Planning Board hereby determines that the new use (doctor's office) of the existing structure located at 168-180 Pleasant Street will not have a significant impact, both within the site and in relation to adjacent properties and streets, on pedestrian and vehicular traffic, public services and infrastructure, environmental, unique and historic resources, abutting properties, and community needs. The Planning Board hereby WAIVES the requirement of Site Plan Review. cc. Applicant Assessor Building Inspector Conservation Administrator Director of Public Works Engineer File Fire Chief Health Agent Police Chief WILLIS and WILLIS Attorneys-at-Law 160 Pleasant Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845-2797 Telephone (508) 685-3551 JOHN J. WILLIS Fax (508) 794-8363 JOHN J. WILLIS, JR. June 6, 1996 Mr. Robert Nicetta North Andover Building Inspector Town Hall North Andover, MA 01845 Re: Building Permit for Renovations at 168-180 Pleasant Street, former Eaton Apothecary Dear Mr. Nicetta: On June 4, 1996 the North Andover Planning Board met and voted under the provisions of our new site plan review Bylaw that the above-captioned project was not required to submit a site plan. That being the case, all is now in order to file an application for a Building Permit for the property renovations. Enclosed with this letter is a scaled site plan showing the proposed parking layout for the property. There is paved space on the lot for 28 parking spaces. Enclosed also are two recent Supreme Judicial Court cases defining when and under what circumstances properties are entitled to the protection of Mass. General Laws Ch. 40A, Section 6. As I am sure you are aware, these grandfathering provisions protect existing structures and uses which legally complied with the zoning requirements at the time of their erection and use and are not subject to subsequently enacted zoning restrictions. In the case of the above project, the off street parking requirements were not in existence at the time the structures were erected. The uses of the buildings have alwasy complied with those allowed in a General Business District. The present change consists of interior renovations of the front portion of the building to reconfigure the space from that of its previously allowed retail use as a drug store to previously allowed and presently allowed use as a medical office suite. Under our present zoning Bylaw the off street parking requirements for a retail use require 7 spaces per thousand square feet as opposed to medical office suite which requires 3 per thousand plus space for the employees of the medical suite. Since t JUN 1 f 1996 , : 1 Page 2 Mr. Robert Nicetta June 6, 1996 the change in use is going to one which is less parking intensive than the existing allowed use, we have met the provisions of Ch. 40A, Section 6 in that the use as proposed will have a lesser impact on the neighborhood. This project is therefore exempt from meeting the requirements of the presently existing off street parking requirements. As you have determined, if the parking Bylaw were to be applied to this property, the required number of spaces would be 32. If you review the parking plan as submitted, you will note that we almost meet this requirement with the number 28. Application of the existing Bylaw to the existing use of the structure would require 42 spaces. This more than demonstrates the positive improvement to the situation in the change from a retail use to a medical office suite use. I believe now all is in place for you to entertain and issue a Building Permit based on the plans we will submit to you. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. I remain, Sincerely, / 1 Joh J Wi lis, Jr. JJW:C enc. oil 1 JUN i i 1996 tAORTH - Town of over No. 3 oj o ,�. rt . dover, Mass.,— 19 1) C 0C MIC ME WICK 0RATED S BOARD OF HEALTH Food/Kitchen PERMIT T D Septic System BUILDING INSPECTOR THIS CERTIFIES THAT..................... ................. .............. ... ... ......................................................... Foundation has permission jWhbp on ......I..G..8. ?p.0........F)4-EA Rough :77 to be Occupied as...................................Dario .(�r-W-k-c--p............................................................................ Chimney provided that the person accepting this permit shall in every respect conform to the terms of the application on file in Final this office, and to the provisions of the Codes and By-Laws relating to the Inspection, Alteration and Construction of Buildings in the Town of North Andover. PLUMBING INSPECTOR VIOLATION of the Zoning or Building Regulations Voids this Permit. Rough PERMIT EXPIRES IN 6 MONTHS Final UNLESS CONSTRUCTION S I TAP�,TS ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR T Rough .... .. ...... ....... . . . ......................................... ....................................A. Service B I G INSPECTOR Final Occupancy Permit Required to Occupy Building GAS INSPECTOR Display in a Conspicuous Place on the Premises — Do Not Remove Rough Final" No Lathing or Dry Wall To Be Done FIRE DEPARTMENT Until Inspected and Approved by the Building Inspector. Burner Street No. Smoke Det. PERMIT NO. PACE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO BUILD — NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. MAP 4q O. 0700 i LOT NO. 2 RECORD OF OWNERSHIP (DATEBOOK 'PAGE ZONE I SUB DIV. LOT NO. O n , — DOES—j0015 LOCATION 16 pleasant Street PURPOSE OF BUILDING Medical Office Space OWNER'S NAMEJohn J. Willis, Trusee of Pleasant St. NO. OF STORIES 1 SIZE 2600 S.F. cp --` OWNER'S ADDRE BASEMENT OR SLAB Basement - 160 Pleasant St. , No: Andover ARCHITECT'S NAME John J. Brennan Associates SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS IST 2X10 2ND 3RD BUILDER'S NAME Ariuna 'Construction Co. , Inc.. SPAN DISTANCE TO NEAREST BUILDING 0' DIMENSIONS OF SILLS (}X6 DISTANCE FROM STREET 91_611 - POSTS Lally's DISTANCE FROM LOT LINES-SIDES 30 1-Ott REAR 15 1-011 GIRDERS 10 AREA OF LOT 25,000 S.F. FRONTAGE 220' HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION 81 THICKNESS 1211 IS BUILDING NEW No SIZE OF FOOTING 2411 % 12" IS BUILDING ADDITION No MATERIAL OF CHIMNEY Brick IS BUILDING ALTERATION YES IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND Solid WILL BUILDING CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF CODE Yes IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN WATER Yes BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION.,IF ANY None IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO TOWN SEWER Yes IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE Yes INSTRUCTIONS 3 PROPERTY INFORMATION LAND COST SEE BOTH SIDES EST. BLDG. COST 78,-000 . .... .. _.. EST. BLDG. COST PER SQ. FT. PAGE i FILL OUT SECTIONS 1 - 3 $30.00 PAGE 2 FILL OUT SECTIONS I - 12 EST. BLDG. COOT PER ROOM SEPTIC PERMIT NO. ELECTRIC METERS MUST BE ON OUTSIDE OF BUILDING 4 APPROVED BY ATTACHED GARAGES MUST CONFORM TO STATE FIRE REGULATIONS PLANE MUST BE FILED AND "ED Y�SILDING INSPECTOR D E ED ne 1 99 BUILDING 1 NSPSCTO! SIGNA WNER OR AUTH IZED NT F E E �� _L d `OWNER TEL p (508) 685-3551PERMIT GRANTED '__ CONTR.TEL A (508) 683-9127 ��.19 CONTR.LIC.# 028147 ::.:•'.:::.. H.I.C.N r 9 � BUILDING RECORD 1 OCCUPANCY 12 SINGLE FAMILY sroRlEs THIS SECTION MUST SHOW EXACT DIMENSIONS OF LOT AND DISTANCE FROM "- MULTI. FAMILY OFFICES LOT LINES AND EXACT DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS. WITH PORCHES. GA- APARTMENTS RAGES. ETC. SUPERIMPOSED. THIS REPLACES PLOT PLAN. CONSTRUCTION 2 FOUNDATION 8 INTERIOR FINISH CONCRETE d' I 2 13 CONCRETE BL'K. PINE BRICK OR STONE HARDW'D PIERS PLASTER _ --"+ DRY WALL UNFIN. 3 BASEMENT 11 AREA FULL FIN. 8'M'T' AREA _ '/ '/r v, FIN. ATTIC AREA _ N_O B M FIRE PLACES _ HEAD ROOM MODERN KITCHEN 4 WALLS I 9 FLOORS CLAPBOARDS B 1 2 J DROP SIDING CONCRETE �_ WOOD SHINGLES EARTH _ ASPHALT SIDING HAROW'D ASBESTOS SIDING COMMCN _ VERT. SIDING ASPH. TILE _ STUCCO ON MASONRY STUCCO ON FRAME BRICK ON MASONRY ATTIC STRS. 6 FLOOR - BRICK ON FRAME I— CONC. OR CINDER BLK. STONE ON MASONRY WIRING STONE ON FRAME SUPERI ! POOR ADEQUATE I--I NONE 5 ROOF 10 PLUMBING GABLE HIP BATH (3 Fa.) GAMBRELMANSARD TOILET RM. (2 FIX.) ' FLAT I SHED WATER CLOSET _ ASPHALT SHINGLES LAVATORY _ WOOD $HINGES KITCHEN SINK SLATE NO PLUMBING _ TAR & GRAVEL STALL SHOWER _ ROLL ROOFING MODERN FIXTURES _ TILE FLOOR TILE DADO 6 FRAMING 11 HEATING WOOD )01ST PIPELESS FURNACE FORCED HOT AIR FURN. ' TIMBER BMS. 6 COLS. STEAM - \ STEEL BMS. & COLS. HOT W T'R OR VAPOR WOOD RAFTERS _ AIR CONDITIONING RADIANT H'T'G . . UNIT HEATERS 7 NO. OF ROOMS Ol BM'T 13 d I NOHEATING JUN EXISTING BUILDING 1�j . EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT (TYP.) LOT 2 0 26 _' IT _ �Q 2.5 20 1 2 24 19 I 23 1a EXISTING BUILDING 3 22 / I 4 17 I 5 DRY ELL FOR ROOF LEADER 21 16 L 5 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 L q 28 L J 6 L� -O- PLEASANT STREET -o- LOCUS MAP NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED PARKING PLAN FOR LAND IN \L4 OF Mqs NORTH AND 0 VER, MASS. PREPARED FOR w FQ x8895 LORETTA WILLIS°JT N6�� SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: JUNE 4, 1996 ssrona�E 20 0 20 40 FT --7/Q I � PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS a CHRISTIANSEN &SERGI LAND SURVEYORS � 160 SUMMER ST. HAVERHILL, MA 01830 TEL. 508-373-0310 © 1996 BY CHRISTIANS£N & SERGI INC. DWG. NO. 96019002 i 726 Mass. 217 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ;a that activities since enactment of zoning I` TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER et aIA bylaw showed emergence of a new business V. in the manufacture, sale and distribution of �+ ready-mixed concrete. fell, {!, John CHUCICRAN. and I, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 3. Zoning (8=321 he T Plymouth. Three tests for determining whether 1 h( current use of ro ert fits within exemp- fins 1 Argued May 3, 1966. tion ranted to nonconforming uses are 1 ung Decided June 6, 1966. whether use reflects nature and purpose o a si use rei vai n wen zoning yaw oo e - evic feet, (2) whether there is a difference in star Suit in equity by town to enjoin de- quality or character, as well as degree, ot Dila fendant from using premises in residence use, and (3) whether current use is differ- 71 Z district for mixing, sale and distribution ofent iit kutd ut its effect on neigt of too . T concrete. Several abutters and nearby resi- dents were permitted to intervene in sup- 4. Zoning 0329 stiPF then port of town's bill. From a decree of the Where original purpose of use exempt- Superior xempt- Su erior Court Cahill an appeal was on J `. p , J•, PP ed from zoning regulations was use as a ran' �s taken. The Supreme Judicial Court, Kirk, house builder's main yard in which mixing used held that where original nature and pur- of concrete was merely incidental to general of b pose of use exempted from zoning regula- business, and current use following enact- ers < tions was use as a house builder's main ment of zoning bylaw included a ready- a he i; yard in which mixing of concrete was mere- mixed concrete manufactory and center for ill �3 ly incidental to general business, and cur- supply to others, current use was not ex- s_ Chin �t rent use following enactment of zoning empt as nonconforming use. dent i' bylaw included a ready-mixed concrete sista] manufactory and center for supply to oth- 5. Zoning G=680 able ers, original nature and purpose of enter- Alleged holder of nonconforming use colic prise had citangcd, and quality and charac did not sustain burden of proving that cur- datic ter had also changed in that concrete opera- rent use, including use as a ready-mixed quell tion had developed into modern plant using concrete manufactory and center for supply by c t3 more elaborate fixed facilities and more to others, had not changed from prior use iy %hug complicated vehicles, current use was not of land as house builder's main yard in cubic exemption granted to nonconforming use. which mixing of concrete was merely incl- cons li As modified decree affirmed. dental to general business. tract one 0 1. Appeal and Error«576 Harry P. Dunn, Bridgewater, for Town S" Judge's voluntary comprehensive find- of Bridgewater (Robert G. Clark, III, Chu( r]' ing of fact by adoption following request Brockton, for interveners, with him). mixil 4. 4 i'•. became a statutory report of material facts. total George L. Wainwright, Brockton thirty a�? M.G.L.A. c. 214 § 23. (Charles P. Buckley, Bridgewater, wt'' ith ran ] him) for defendant. made r � 2. Zoning «787 steel s Evidence established that prior to resi- Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALD- convi dential zoning work with concrete was unci- ING,WHITTEMORE,KIRK,and REAR- 1 , 1 into i j dental to main business of construction but DON, JJ. be pc 1. Several abutters and nearby residents were permitted to intervene in support of the town's hill of complaint. y *» 1996 1 Ilk - I .f 1, TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER v. CHUCKRAN Mass, 727 Cite as 217 N.E.2d 726 :oning KIRK, Justice. of his trucks are ten-wheelers. In 1961, the telephone listing for the business was ; n f [1] The town seeks to enjoin the de- changed from "John Chuckran Lumber .iooo n of fendant from using premises, owned by him Company" to "Chuckran's Lumber and and located in a residence district, for the Concrete Company." Also in 1961, Chuck- mixing, sale and distribution of concrete. ran added the words "and Concrete" to the The judge voluntarily made comprehensive signs on his trucks. Increasingly unsightly �jxem r findings of fact, which, by adoption follow- mounds of empty cement bags have piled are 1 ing requests under G.L. c. 214, § 23,became up. Old motor vehicles and other waste ! O a statutory report of material facts. The materials have accumulated over an area pose of evidence is reported. We apply the same larger than that originally used by Chuck- ook ef- standard of review that was applied in ran for business purposes in 1957. From all ence Of DiBurro v. Bonasia, 321 Mass. 12, 13, 15, appearances, the mixing of concrete and ;ree, of i M 71 N. . . he supplying of it to others is now a ma- differ- N.E.2d 401t3� jor enterprise. it hood. The facts found by the judge are fully 1� supported by the evidence. We summarize [2] Chuckran was unable to supply busi- f them. The zoning by-law became effective ness records prior to 1960. Although he j exempt- on June 3, 1957. Prior to that date Chuck- contended that he was engaged in the con- ise as a ran's premises, at 437 North Street, were crete mixing business prior to zoning and I mixing used for his residence and for the keeping that his increased activity in that line was a general of building materials which he sold to oth- permissible increase in volume within the g enact- ers or used in his own principal business as scope of the exemption for a nonconform- a ready- a house builder. Tile materials were kept ing use (see Building Commr, of Medford enter for in a cement block building erected by v. McGrath, 312 Mass. 461, 462, 45 N.E.2d not ex- Chuckran to the rear of the dwelling. Inci- 265) the judge found, and we agree, that dental to his building business lie used a Chuckran's pre-1957 work with concrete small batcher on the premises and a port- was incidental to his main business of con- able hatcher mounted on a truck to mix struction whereas his activities since the ming use concrete which was then poured for foun- enactment of the zoning by-law show the that cur- •dations of houses built by him. More fre- emergence of a new business in the manu- idy-mixed quently he bought and used concrete mixed facture, sale and distribution of ready mix- for supply by others. The total mixing capacity of ed concrete. prior use Chuckran's equipment in 1957 was four i yard in cubic yards. His other equipment in 1957 [3,4] Recent cases have emphasized crely inci- consisted, at most, of two dnuip trucla, a three tests for determining whether current tractor loader, a heavy duty trailer and a use of property fits within the exemption one and one-half ton truck. granted to nonconforming uses. (1) Whether the use reflects the "nature and g when e Since the adoption of the zoning by-law purpose" of the use prevailin hthe i for Town -lark, III, Chuckran has greatly increased his concrete zoning by-law tool; effect. Massachusetts mixing equipment, notably in trucks. The Broken Stone Co. v. Town of Weston, 346 t: him). total mixing capacity of his trucks is now Mass. 657, 662, 195 N.E.2d 522; Superin- � Brockton thirty-five cubic yards. In addition Chuck- tendent & Inspector of Bldgs. of Cambridge ,ater, with ran has built and plans to use a hatcher v. Villari, Mass.,n 213 N.E.2d 861. (2) ` made up of a large steel bin mounted on Whether there is a difference in the quality t steel legs thirty-five feet high with a long or character, as well as the degree, of use. d SPALD- conveyor belt which would feed ingredients Brady v. Board of Appeals of Westport, nd REAR- into the bin from which concrete mix would 3.15 Mass. 515, 523, 204 N.E.2d 513; Build- !� be poured into trucks stationed below. Six ing Tnspector of Malden v. Werlin Realty, i;,,I� the town's a. D4ass.Adv.Sh. (1906) 143, 144. �'V't p1, z 'i 4�f 728 Mass, 217 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Inc., Mass.,'' 211 N.L.2d 338• (3) Whether judge. The first paragraph is to be modi- the current use is "different in kind in its fied by adding the following clause, "re- effect on the neighborhood." City of Mcd- serving to the respondent, however, the i e ford v. Marirnicci Bros. & Co., Inc., 344 right to operate a concrete mixer with a i Mass. 50,60, 181 N.I.2d 584, 590, and cases capacity not in excess of four cubic yards for the sole purpose of prov cited. We think that Chuckran's current iding concrete 1 ` r use of his land with respect to his concrete in connection with t}ie per of his } mixing business is barred when tested by own building contracts." The second and these standards. third paragraphs are to be expunged. The ` fourth paragraph is also to be struck out, The original nature and purpose of the and the following provision substituted 3 use which was exempted from the zoning therefor: "The only trucks or mechanical 3 regulations was use as a house builder's equipment to be permitted on the premises main yard in which the mixing of concrete are to be those used solely in connection was merely incidental to the general busi- with the building business." The fifth para- ness. In so far as the land is now used as graph is to be modified by adding a require- a ready mixed concrete manufactory and ment that the defendant dismantle as soon center for supply to others, the original na- as practicable the thirty-five foot high 4 ture and purpose of the enterprise has structure and its appurtenances. The date changed. See Town of Lexington v. Bean, for compliance with the latter provision is 272 Mass. 547, 553, 172 N.L. 867. to be fixed by the judge. The quality and character of the use has As thus modified the final decree is af- also changed in that the concrete operation firmed with costs of appeal. has now developed "into a modern plan* So ordered. ►' using more elaborate fixed facilities [and] more complicated vehicles than in 1957. Town of Seekonk v. Anthony, 339 w Mass. 49,'53 157 N.L.2d 651, 654. The p s KEY NUMBER SYSTEM deleterious effect of this change on the T otherwise residential surroundings is ob- vious. Compare Cochran v. Roemer, 287 Mass. 500, 508, 192 N.L. 58, with Town of Basil K.WOODS et al. s Marblehead v. Rosenthal, 316 Mass. 124, 128, 55 N.L.2d 13. V. f( [g] Applying the "minininm tolerance CITY OF NEWTON et al. f! which must be given to nonconforming Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. cl uses," Chilson V. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Middlesex. � t% Attleboro, 344 Mass. 406, 411, 182 N.L.2d ` 535, 539, to the judge's findings, we think Argued May 5, 1966. that Chuckran has not sustained the burden Decided June 8,1966. fof proving that his current use of the land has not changed from the 1957 use. Cola- s bufalo v. Public Bldgs. Commr. of Newton, Suit in equity to determine validity of 332 Mass. 748, 751, 127 N.L.2d 564. rezoning of land and granting of exception In order to reduce the prospect of fur- to permit construction of motel tentered they litigation we think {3 that the final degree The Superior Court, Tomasello, J., eal was taken. should be modified to make clear th�legae TheaSupremdecree d cjudic judicial Mitte ore,. effect of the findings of fact made y ? ` b. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1965) 1289, 1290. � 1 � a , Y 9 c � BARRON CHEVROLET v. TOWN OF DANVERS Mass. 89 Cite as 646 N.E.2d 89 (Mass. 1995) 1 ; U11 It is said that the payment day rule is the �n s one used in "most of the major civilized 419 Mass. 404 1u countries of the world." Id. If the circum- 1404BARRON CHEVROLET, INC. tltances were reversed, courts in England ;. 'would apply it or use the nearest practicable V. Ute ; : 'date. See Miliangos v. George Frank (Tex TOWN OF DANVERS & another.' files) Ltd., [1976] App.Cas. 443, 468-469 (fa- ' We, No. SJC-06589. voring payment date rule because [t]his a date gets nearest to securing to the creditor Supreme Judicial Court of.Massachusetts, r' exactly what he bargained for," where pay- Suffolk. nt) :# hent date was understood as the date execu- ' 'tion of judgment would be authorized). See Argued Nov. 8, 1994. '. eat jf w Owners of M.V. Eleflherotria v. Oumers Decided Feb. 6, 1995. In off V.Despina R, [1979]App.Cas.685,700— hee►,r ` 701 (where the contract provides no answer note " 'Eo the currency question, "the damage should Landowner brought action appealing }' ing ",,' '-`be calci ated420 currency in which the loss zoning board of appeals denial of landowner's )f e1 r was felt by the plaintiff or 'which most truly application seeking "special permit" to re- dl ` C eipresses his loss'"). place panels on two of three signs. The ` l;) )rmi Judgment shall be entered ordering that Land Court, Suffolk County, Robert V. Cau- 1 Manches& Co. shall recover from the defen- chon,J.,granted summary judgment in favor dants, at the defendants' option, either (a) of landowner. On appeal, the Supreme Judi- i ong the amount of the English judgment (£30,- tial Court, Abrams, J., held that: (1) land- ``_ idg 138.35)or(b) the equivalent in dollars of the owner had right to request judicial determi- t, . the $nglish judgment determined at the ex- nation of land use right under zoning by-law; 1'� change rate in effect on the day of or the day (2) in all respects, except for their location, ]" d before payment,with interest on that amount signs were lawful, preexisting nonconforming { 1 tta a ; On each instance), payable in pounds or dol- uses; and (3) change of sign panels did not Im at the Massachusetts rate of interest fair x>• take signs out of statutory protection as prior the ,-from the date of entry of the action until the nonconforming use. thief date of payment. So ordered. Affirmed. 1228 p W2KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 1. Zoning and Planning Ca570 T Landowner's request that land courti4„ rad o, judge determine its right to change signs in Mon Qorth form Foreign—Money Claims Act,23 Law&Pol'y er English or Massachusetts law should deter- ✓trgl f Int'I Bus. 1, 75, 83 (1991-1992). mine interest questions. See Morris v. Watsco, x ifotm' " Inc., 385 Mass. 672, 676, 433 N.E.2d 886 (1982) °+t° 'R There has been no claim that, on conflict of Supp ? (interest obligation to be determined by law gov- :a laws principles, the conversion date question 3' 2916 erning contract rights); Quaker State Oil Rel. s should be determined by the law of Great Britain Uonsr Corp.v. Garrity Oil Cu., 884 F.2d 1510, 1514(Ist where the contract for services was made and ds 0 ' Cir.1989)(Massachusetts would not automatical- the default judgment was entered. See HtaTting- antis) ton Nat'l Bank v.Sproul, 116 N.M.254,258-259, ly invoke its statute on prejudgment interest). +, iforTtt '4' 861 P.2d 935, 939-40(1993); Restatement (Sec- The judge awarded interest from the time of r n the : ond) of Conflict of Laws § 99 (1971). We as- city of this action at the rale of inicresl payable t b under Massachusetts law. No cballeu,c is made tf„ rnoua .'.some, without deciding, that ll�c internal sub- 6' tionnl stantive law of Massachusetts governs the con- on appeal to that ruling,although Mauches stales tutory, .r version date question. that English law would call for interest at an > annual rate of 15%from the dale of the English , !. If there is action taken to execute on the judg- judgment, payable on the base amount due (i.e., ment, it is likely that only option (b) of the not including interest) expressed in the English fs, iether g P" g , T Fork; •x judgment will be practicable. judgment. The parties did not raise the question in the ,, 1 c Superior Court of how interest should be ex- I. Danvers zoning board of appeals. pressed in the Massachusetts judgment or wheth- Unt�. JUN i 1996 } 1 yQ Mass. 646 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES B 1¢ face of new zoning by-law was not moot,even Katherine A. Hesse, Quincy, for defen. A - J346 l: though landowner was granted variances, as dants. : .boar( ' landowner had right to request judicial de- mit termination of land use right ht under zoning �5Edward T. Patten, Boston, David A g g Mills, Danvers, with him, for plaintiff. signs by-law. `panel t. Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS 1 `2. ZoningRent and Planning «Tll, 481 NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GR,EANEY,�JJ. .`:panel Use permitted by variance cannot be Cars prior nonconforming use because, by defini- ABRAMS, Justice. 7, "Geo' tion, variance was required and it therefore The plaintiff, Barron Chevrolet, Inc.,is an cation was not allowed as matter of right. automobile dealership in the town of Danvers * 'origin M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 6. (town). On its property, the plaintiff main- `_ 'ance. .` tains three free-standing signs, erected pur- ' use u ut 3. Zoning and Planning «502.1 suant to setback variances granted by the Rath, 1 In all respects, except for their location, Danvers zoning board of appeals (board) in ``' varia. signs were lawful, preexisting nonconforming 1969 and 1972. The 1969 variance permitted obtai; uses and changes to them did not require the erection of two signs closer than the Th modification of variances, where variances then-existing fifty-foot setback from the Land pertained only to location, and did not ad- street line. The 1972 variance permitted the '. >. dress, and were not conditioned on, content erection of a third sign within the setback. ' under k or any other feature or quality of signs. area, but further than thirty feet from the c' , ' street line. Other than their location on the 3 =' `endive ' 4. Zoning and Planning «328 premises, the signs complied with the localtown Change of sign panels did not take signs zoning by-laws at the time they were erected plains _ out of statutory protection as prior noncon- All three signs have been used and main- ed a forming use, where use remained advertising tained continuously from the dates on whicha to el automotive goods and services,where change they were erected, and each was erected :" nonel in panels and specific products advertised did within six months of the allowance of the iff M a not change nature and purpose of use, and relevant variance. �'40A+ where there was no change in quality, char- ;;judgr In August, 1987, the plaintiff's property § 141 atter, or degree of use. M.G.L.A. c. 40A, was rezoned and placed within the Route 114 4 :Land {�' 6 § 6' Corridor Zone A District, a zone created and r tenter r governed by § 25 of the town's zoning by- f 5. Zoning and Planning x327 July p {� laws. In the new district, only one"identify- notice Town, in its zoning by-law, may regulate ing" sign is permitted on the property; the r a or forbid changes in nonconforming uses. area of any free-standing sign is limited to, to k M.G.L.A. c. 40A, § 6. 100 square feet; the street setback is twenty- enh t,. 6. Zoning and Planning x327 rive feet; and the maximum sign height is con` twenty feet. The plaintiff's signs do not u_ Right of municipalities to regulate or conform to the new requirements. The 4, G prohibit c anges to prior noncon ormmg uses plaintiff has three "identifying" signs. Two.... vide is limited to changes, extensions, reconstruc- exceed the height limit and two exceed the xx esta (4 in t tions, and alterations to prior nonconforming sign area limit. The by-law has a"grandfa- sues uses and structures to which zoning ordi- ther" clause which permits the maintenance ob'c K nane v-aws apply M.G.L.A_ c 40A, of preexisting nonconforming signs, but not ord § 6• their alteration.3 the r regi t 2. The relevant portion of the bylaw is § 25.7, shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from the ,,, the which provides, in pertinent part: "1. A maxi- street line. Maximum sign height is twenty(20) . met tri mum of one(1) identifying sign shall be allowed feet. Minimum sign height is six (6) feet." (het t for each lot.... on, {q '' 3. This clause, § 25.7.12 of the by-law, provides, min "4. The area of any free-standing sign shall in relevant part: "Non-conforming signs erected pal not exceed one hundred (100) square feet, and prior to the adoption of this by-law may continue,;' pose Y'. y .r' BARRON CHEVROLET v. TOWN OF DANVERS Mass. J1 (: r Cite as 646 N.E.2d 89 (Mass. 1995) Ii. 'fen 1o6In May, 1989,the plaintiff filed with the ferred the case here on our own motion. We board an application seeking a "special per- affirm the decision of the Land Court. I A. :, mit to replace the panels on two of the three A. Mootness. The defendants argue signs. It requested permission to replace that, because the plaintiff was granted the 8 panels on one sign that read "Leasing and variances, it is no longer an aggrieved party '� Rental"with panels reading"Used Cars"and under G.L.c.40A,§ 17,and the case is moot. l JJ ,.,� panels on another sign that read "OK Used See Matter of Sturtz, 410 Mass. 58, 59, 570 „ Cars Barron" with panels displaying the N.E2d 1024 (1991), quoting Metros v. Secre- "Geo"emblem. The board denied the appli- tart' of the Commonwealth, 396 Mass. 156, is an cation on the ground that, because the signs 159,484 N.E2d 1015(1985) ("It is the gener- rivers i originally were erected pursuant to vari- al rule that courts decid�.L407only actual con- ances, the were not prior nonconformingtroversies. We follow that rule, and normal- ' main Y p pur '- use under G.L. c. 40A, § 6, par. 1 (1992 ed.). ly we do not decide moot cases"). y the ` .Rather,the board ruled;a modification of the [1] The case is not moot. The action f d) in', f variances was necessary for the plaintiff to seeks relief as to the applicability of the by- ^` Witted;: obtain relief. law, pursuant to G.L. c. 240, § 14A." A W the, � present, actual dispute is not required under The plaintiff then filed this action in the G.L. c. 240 g g + thei. � P , § 14A. See Gage v. E renzv7zt, I y. Land Court appealing the boards decision, 409 Mass. 345 a A the , 346 n. 2 566 N.E2d 597 t tback ' under G.L. c. 40A, § 17 (1992 ed.), and G.L. (1991) ("a landowner is entitled to a decision els c.240, § 14A (1992 ed.), naming the board, on the applicability of zoning provisions on n the`A-� _ PP• ' Y g p s�. In the " individual members of the board, and the her land without regard to the existence of a local `jX. town as defendants. Shortly thereafter, the controversy or the right otherwise to declar- , ected."' Plaintiff applied for and promptly was grant- atory relief"). As a landowner, the plaintiff main ed a modification of its variances allowing it has the right to request a judicial determina- c which<. to change the sign panels. The plaintiff tion of land use rights under the zoning by- ­A y- recte&� ' ,nonetheless continued this action. The plain- law. See id.; Sturges v. Chilmark, 380 ' of they', .It, Gffwaived the counts brought under G.L. c. Mass. 246, 249, 402 N.E2d 1346 (1980); Ad- 40A, § 17, and filed a motion for summary dison—Wesley Publishing Co. v. Reading, 354 ' judgment on the count under G.L. c. 240, Mass. 181, 185,236 N.E2d 188(1968). Thus, operty.; 114A. After briefing and a hearing, the the plaintiff's request that the Land Court 1 tte lid-;y Land Court judge granted the motion and judge determine its right to change the signs ed and= ',entered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on in the face of the new zoning by-law, as Ig by% *.t July fY 1, 1992. The defendants filed timely applied by the board, is not moot and is a , entr - notice of appeal on July 16, 1992. We trans- proper subject for judicial determination 5 ,y the¢ t. ited to to be maintained, provided that no such sign is ment of such land by the erection,alteration [or] Ey ,wenty enlarged, redesigned, or altered in any way, in- repair of structures thereon or otherwise as set H. eluding repainting in a different color, except to forth in such petition.... The court may make j lght 18'' conform to the requirements of this by-law." binding determinations of right interpreting such u do not=` `'; ordinances, by-laws or regulations whether any Ther General Laws c. 240, § 14A (1992 ed.), pro- consequential judgment or relief is or could be , vides,in relevant part: "The owner of a freehold claimed or not." !ed the: estate in possession in land may bring a petition r in the land court against a city or town wherein 5. The defendants argue that, because the proper r' randfa ' such land is situated, which shall not be open to procedure for the plaintiff to secure relief was a P P P t "- Genanegtt: .objection on the ground that a mere judgment, modification of a variance, the by-law is not i but nots) order or decree is sought,for determination as to implicated and G.L.c.240,§ 14A,therefore does the validity of a municipal ordinance, by-law or not apply. The plaintiff essentially asked the ' regulation ... which purports to restrict or limit court'Tor a determination of the extent to which f t' 'rom th, the present or future use, enjoyment, improve- [the by-law] ... affects a proposed use ... of al p �nty OC', ment or development of such land, or any part [the] land by the ... alteration ... of[the signs] p� eet.' `thereof,or of present or future structures there- thereon...." G.L. c. 240, § 14A. Whether a on,including alterations or repairs, or for deter- special permit, finding by the relevant agency, =.w an mination of the extent to which such munici- modification of a variance or none of these is �rovi dd,erec� , Y ed pal ordinance,by-law or regulation affects a pro- necessary to alter the signs is central to this continue 1 posed use, enjoyment, improvement or develop- determination. y' 5 t� R,92 Mass. 646 NORTH EASTERN REPORTE2d SERIES ' J 1 [2] 1408B. Necessity of variance modifz- spects, the signs were prior nonconforming 4 cation. The central issue is whether the uses. Because the changes sought by the signs were prior nonconforming uses or plaintiff did not relate to the 1969 and 1972 ar' structures. A prior nonconforming use is a variances, the judge ruled, they did not re use that had been allowed as a matter of quire a modification of those variances. The t is defendants argue that, because the signs right under the prior zoning by laws, bu not allowed under a new by-law. See G.L. c. would not have been permitted in the ab 40A, § 6; Shrewsbu E emere Assocs. sence of the variances, the changes were 4 Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Appeals of related and incident to the variances and � ? Shrewsbury, 409 Mass. 317, 320-321, 565 could only be made on a modification thereof. N.E.2d 1214 (1991). This is distinct from a [3] The town read the scope of the van- . F+ use permitted by a variance. Such a use ances too broadly. While the signs were « l ' cannot be a prior nonconforming use be- erected and maintained pursuant to the vari- cause, by definition, a variance was required ances, the variances only addressed their and it therefore was not allowed•as a matter location.s Thesvariances did not address, 'g of right. See Mendes v. Board of Appeals of and were not conditioned on, the content or Barnstable, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 527, 531, 552 any other feature or quality of the signs. N.E.2d 604 (1990) ("It would be anomalous if The use of the land for the display of signsv a variance, by its nature sparingly granted, and the physical characteristics of the signs ' functioned as a launching ad for expansion•�; g P P were allowed as a matter of right at the time as a nonconforming use" [footnote omitted]). the signs were erected. Thus, the Land The defendants argue that, because vari- Court judge was correct in concluding that, ances were necessary for the erection of the in all respects except for their location, the signs, the signs could not be prior noncon- signs were lawful, pre-existing nonconform- . forming uses, and the proposed changes ing uses and that the changes to them did y ' could only be effected through a modification not require a modification of the variances! = " of the variances. The Land Court judge C. Protection as prior nonconforming dh; reasoned that, because, at the time of their use. As prior nonconforming uses,the signs ` erection, the signs conformed to the applica- and changes to them are governed by G.L.G f ble zoning by-laws in all respects except for 40A, § 6 8 Under this section, a by-law does x ` their location on the property, the variances not apply to a prior nonconforming use or - ba only concerned locations. In all other re- structure, but does apply to any change or 6. The 1969 variance was "to erect two signs ... to structures or uses lawfully in existence or � closer to the street line than is permitted...." lawfully begun ... before the first publication of " . a The plan on which the variance was granted notice of the public hearing on such ordinance or "" identified the signs as the used car sign" and x, g g by-law but shall apply to any change or the "product sign." The variance did not de- substantial extension of such use,to a building or c scribe any characteristics of the signs and did not special permit issued after the first notice of said impose any conditions. The 1972 variance was public hearing, to any reconstruction, extension a ; "to erect a sign ... closer to the street side line or structural change of such structure and to any than is permitted...." It was granted "subject Q'f to the condition that said sign shall be erected alteration of a structure begun after the first notice of said public hearing to provide for its [30 feet] or more from the street line...." No '- rEs other conditions were imposed. The variance use For a substantially different•purpose or for . did describe the sign. the same purpose in a substantially different 1; manner or to a substantially greater extent.... 7. The Land Court judge found and ruled that, "to Pre-existing nonconforming structures or uses> +- )A, the extent that[§125.7.12[of the by-law]requires may be extended or altered, provided, that no ti f a variance to merely change a sign's message, it such extension or alteration shall be permitted is not a reasonable time,place or manner control unless there is a finding by the permit granting " on otherwise protected commercial speech." authority or by the special permit granting au. Because we hold that a variance is not necessary thority designated by ordinance or by-law that ' to change the sign panels,we need not reach the such change, extension or alteration shall not be ;,,1 constitutional issue. substantially more detrimental than the existing »; 8. General Laws c. 40A, § 6(1992 ed.), provides, nonconforming use to the neighborhood....' u in relevant part: "Except as hereinafter provid- ed, a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply f'1 ��iY' ANVERS Mass. J3 BARRON CHEVROLET v. TOWN OF D Cite as 646 N.E.2d 89 (Mass. 1995) 1 {' substantial extension of such use . .., any gree, of use"; and 411(3) "Whether the cur- reconstruction, extension or structural rent use is `different in kind in its effect on Change of such structure and [] any altera- the neighborhood.'" Bridgewater, supra, , z tion of a structure . .. tooprovide for its 351 Mass. at 23, 217 N.E2d 726. See, e.g., use for a substantially different purpose or Derby Ref. Co., supra, 407 Mass. at 712, 555 r for the same purpose in a substantially dif- N.E2d 534; Cape Resort Hotels, Inc., supra, ferent manner or to a substantially greater 385 Mass. at 212, 431 N.E2d 213. �[ h extent" Id. The Land Court judge found that the changes consisted "only of changing [4] The current use reflects the "nature r the commercial message conveyed by each and purpose" of the use at the time the by { • �r sign and entail no reconstruction, extension, law took effect. The use remains advertising ` structural change or alteration of the use or automotive goods and services available on { structures to provide for a use for a substan- the premises. The change in the panels and tially different purpose or for the same pur- specific products advertised did not change pose in a substantially different manner or to the nature and pupose of the use. See r a substantially greater extent." The judge Derby Ref. Co., supra, 407 Mass. at 713, 555 concluded that, "because the proposed N.E2d 534(nature and purpose of use, "bulk changes do not cross the substantiality deliveries by ocean-going vessels, bulk tank thresholds of G.L. c. 40A, § 6, par. 1, first storage and wholesale distribution," un- sentence, a special permit or `finding' under changed despite the fact that the product , the second sentence was not required."9 We was changed from fuel to liquid asphalt and k agree. the facilities were altered to allow for this change). Compare Cape Resort Hotels, Inc., a The change of the sign panels does not take the signs out of G.L. c. 40A, § 6's supra (change from resort hotel for older protection for prior nonconforming uses be- customers to entertainment complex catering l to young nonguests); Jasper v. Michael A. � cause they constitute neither: (1) a "change y g � p Dolan, Inc., 355 Mass. 17,24,242 N.E2d 540y` or substantial extension" of the use, (2) a r "reconstruction, extension or structural (1968) (change from food store that sold beer 3 change" of the structures, nor (3) an altera- and wine to package liquor store). There was no chane in the quality, character or # tion of the structure[s] ... to provide for g q Y' t 8 degree signs r [their] use for a substantially different pur- de!�• of use. The chap ns es g to the g � pose or for the same purpose in a substan- were "ordinarily and reasonably adapted" to r tially different manner or to a substantially the unchanged use. See Derby Ref. Co., r greater extent." G.L. c. 40A, § 6. supra, 407 Mass. at 714, 555 N.E2d 534. 1 First, the change of sign panels does not The new panels simply reflect the changed r product line. Where, as here, nothing sug- ,r a. constitute a "change or substantial exten- ir sion," as determined by the three-part test gests that changes, which are reasonably t" d adapted to the prior use, are extraordinary enunciated in Bri ewater v. Chuckran, 351 n or unreasonable or change the fundamental Y Mass.20, 217 N.E2d 726 (1966). See Derby nature of the original enterprise, a judge Ref " Re Co. v. Chelsea, 407 Mass. 703 711-712 ¢ st � could conclude that this part of the test is is 555 N.E2d 534 (1990); Cape Resort Hotels, satisfied. See id. Finally, there is no evi- n Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Bd. of'Falmouth, _ 't 385 Mass. 205, 212, 431 N.E2d 213 (1982). dente that the changes in the sign panels will � . r" create a different effect on the neighbol•hood. d We inquire: (1) "Whether the [current] use 10 reflects the `nature and purpose' of the use Second, there has been no reconstruction, 'd %` prevailing when the zoning by took ef- extension or structural change of the signs. fi 'g feet'; (2) "Whether there is a difference in The changes were only of the panels. Such at the quality or character, as well as the de- minor changes do not remove the signs from n� 9. The defendants argue that substantiality does denied the protections of G.L. c. 40A, § 6. See not apply to all changes to prior nonconforming infra at 94. As discussed below,the replacement ' ,? uses. We think the judge used the term "sub- of the panels docs not qualify as such a ) stantiality thresholds" to refer to the require- "change." See infra at 93-94. ments for a change to a nonconforming use to be s 94 Mass. 646 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES the protection of G.L. c. 40A, § 6. See Der- "nonconforming structures or uses may be by Ref. Co., supra (changes to liquid storage extended or altered" if the proper local au- facility, including changing the product thority makes a finding "that such change, _ stored, installing a heating system to heat extension or alteration shall not be substan- . ` storage tanks and pipes, insulating the exte- tially more detrimental than the existing non- „ . riors of the tanks and adding scales to truck conforming use to the neighborhood." G.L. �* 1 loading clocks); Crnaq%n�cl u. Bai.ldi.vy kaspec- c. 40A, § 6. We must interpret this provi- for of Barnstable, 356 Mass. 174, 17(i-178, cion in the context of the statute as a whole. ,t Supren 248 N.E.2d 488 (1969) (eosin gaTz outside See Telesetsky v. Wight, 395 Mass. 868, 873, porch and removing external stairs; decided 482 N.E.2d 818 (1985); 3Pentucket Manor sr ' under prior G.L. e. 40A, § 5). Chronic Hosp., Inc. v. Rate Setting Comm'n, ]< Third, the changes do not constitute an 394 Mass. 233, 240, 475 N.E.2d 1201 (1985). "alteration of a structure . . . to provide for In order to read the provision consistently its use for a substantially different purpose with the fust sentence of the statute, we Fo. ` or for the same purpose in a substantially think that the right to regulate changes is pended different manner or to a substantially great- limited to the changes, extensions, recon- release er extent." As discussed above, the purpose, structions and alterations to prior noncon- penor ): . advertising goods and services available on forming uses and structures to which, under warran' the premises, has not changed. Neither the the first sentence of G.L. c. 40A, § 6, zoning �, six-mor ' manner nor the extent of the advertising ordinances and by-laws apply. Our conclu- folk Co sion is consistent with prior decisions allow- tion fc have changed. Et f ing towns to regulate or forbid changes in The Su Thus,the changes to the sign panels do not preexisting nonconforming uses, as the remove the signs from the protection for that: changes in those cases were statutorily ex- sition e prior nonconforming uses of G.L. c.40A, § 6• eluded from prior nonconforming use status. uratic As prior nonconforming uses, the signs with See Strazzulla, supra, 357 Mass. at 695,260 within their new panels are excepted from the new s N.E.2d 163 (reconstruction of sign); Blasco, due r zoningby-law. The plaintiff is permitted as p i; y p 1 supra, 31 Mass.App.Ct.at 33,574 N.E.2d 424 ?. did no a matter of right, to change the panels. (conversion of gravel removal operation to ,r. [5] The by-law provision that a noncon- demolition landfill). Because the changes of Ai forming sin cannot be maintained if it is e sign panes o noconstitute a change, g the ldt titth ` "altered in any way . . . except to conform to extension, reconstruction or alteration of a the requirements of [the] by-law" does notprior nonconforming use or structure to 1. Cri 3 affect this right. By-law, § 25.7.12. A town, which, under the fust sentence of G.L. c. in its zoning by-law, may regulate or forbid 40A, § 6, zoning ordinances and by-laws ap- E _reque., I changes in nonconforming uses. Blasco v. ply, see supra at 94, the town could not ' proba Board t of Appeals of Winchendoi,4 31 Mass. regulate or prohibit them. tion i App.Ct. 32, 39, 574 N.E.2d 424 (1991). See Judgment affirmed. abseni r, Strazzulla, v. Buildi�ag Inspector of Welles- dis os ley, 357 Mass. 694, 697, 260 N.E.2d 163 erioc (1970), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 400 p # 3 ,. U.S. 1004, 91 S.Ct. 568, 27 L.Ed.2d 618 2. Cri� s-j (1971) (recognizing town's power to specify TS, �� P conditions for and limitations on changes in Y NUMBER SYSTEM z revoc; nonconforming signs). However, the { changes in this case did not constitute 3. Co °! changes in nonconforming uses. s. Cr [61 The right of municipalities to regulate cess or prohibit changes to prior nonconforming uses arises under the second sentence of G.L. defau c. 40A, § 6, par. 1. Blasco, supra at 38-39, � 1. Tl 574 N.E.2d 424. The statute provides that war . 7 e CERTIFICATE OF USE & OCCUPANCY Town Of North Andover Building Permit Number 301 Date SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED ON 168-180 PLEASANT STREET MAY BE OCCUPIED AS INTERIOR ALTERATION TO DOCTOR''S OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE AND SUCH OTHER REGULATIONS AS MAY APPLY. ".."':;'ti CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO John J. illis. Tr. 0? ��` 160 Plea nt Sv. ADDRESS `"°S� uddin Inspector i r r+r t, 1 i f 0RTH F N oN ► f-� do0 � dover 19 coc E v n t � TI:D W-7m mor in F BOAT D OF HE ALTN 1 PEK MIT TV Food/I;irchen Septic System BUILDING INSPECTOR THIS CERTIFIES TiiAT .............. ..._...................Y. . ... !.. .. .. ............ - 't��" ....... t1•. ��^. f.....t.: ........ . QUI t101 eaw r {rnimsioo an .,.. EAS' .... 4 .. ( ROUg ra.. ° t0hn Or.Cuoie'I aS............... ...................�.C. �'-.1.�.�..T+,.-(.. �..C-:-n ... .......................... .............. ........... ............. .. i uney prulded ►fiat Wa, persal- accepiiig this Permit sh;il in ovety rssai -{ cmiform to the tarms of the applicatior or? file in this office, and to the { rov'Woysof the Cocks and, By-Laws Trlating to the Insoestion, Alto ador acrd Canstrur'ion of D� �` t Belildln(fS i7 t:IC 1�.,wn of f�crrt,, ,1.nsiiver. PLUMBliv;.: :NSPECTM _ VIOLATICNI or the Zoning or Buildlrg iiegulitiens ti'Wds this PermP.' '�_'�"" .Tr"�' -'"'t,' .�T j���jj `` - -, P E, .v 11 E XJ-J_7+ _5 IN V NITONZH� EL-ECIRICAL INSPECTOR r(Ol'oh 7­2'x -9' C.}k-, ...... .............................. . .. ................. ... ...... ...... .... r� BT i}_)ING 1N8PE lOi1 l��:C!?�1�i,t��-,� /.7 r1 11.: I_'"C {Zl!F'r✓ �:C;-�`�C17��y�_Li2lltrl l.!iv ' /IS LN',I'F'I"f OR --- i�ou�h SufosDiocus R69t : m lr;�e Pf%4p lyes elc Nod kirlove NO Laihiq or Dry Wall To Bu Owe SWAM' Wp rby 0191� i FIRE qEV ARj7v'E"'1