Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Correctional Center Lawsuit: May 2016

    Загружено:

    Greg Saulmon
    359 просмотров39 страниц
    A lawyer has filed a second lawsuit on behalf of Mill Street residents in Springfield, seeking to halt the construction of a correctional addiction center.

    Оригинальное название

    Correctional Center lawsuit: May 2016

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    A lawyer has filed a second lawsuit on behalf of Mill Street residents in Springfield, seeking to halt the construction of a correctional addiction center.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    359 просмотров39 страниц

    Correctional Center Lawsuit: May 2016

    Загружено:

    Greg Saulmon
    A lawyer has filed a second lawsuit on behalf of Mill Street residents in Springfield, seeking to halt the construction of a correctional addiction center.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 39
    () copy COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, HAMPDEN, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO. 16-CV- PATRICIA TASTE-RAY Plaintist v CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ZONING COMPLAINT BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BUILDING COMMISSONER, & MILL STREET ICONIC PROPERTIES, LLC. Defendants, SHE ct iE iva Ge The foregoing complaint secks temporary injunctive relief for violations of the City of Springfield Zoning Ordinances and G.L. 0. 40A. The Plaintiff is well within her statutory Right of Appeal as the Building Commissioner issued a Lodging Permit pursuant to the City of Springfield Zoning Ordinances, Section 2.2 without the required City Council Special Permit Review (See Zoning Ordinance Section 12.4), Asa the back drop to the illegal issuance of the subject permit, the City of Springfield then claimed it was issuing this private corporation a “nonprofit exemption from special permitting” pursuant to M.G.L. ¢. 40A, § 3 without any public hearing or notice to the abutters. As such, the City failed to meet the requirements of its, own Zoning Regulations and public hearing requirements as well as the mandates of G.L. ¢. 40a. Plaintiff Patricia Taste Ray resides at 141 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts and has lived in her home since 2004. Plaintiff's home abuts 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts, the proposed site of the Western Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center. ‘The City of Springfield is a municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal place of address at 36 Court Street, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts, Mill Strect Iconic Properties, LLC. is the record owner of 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts, Atall relevant times hereto Mill Street Iconic Properties, LLC, is a private, for-profit corporation. ‘This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to G.L. ¢. 40A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND SEEKING TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff was informed by the Hampden County Sheriff Michael Ashe and his agents that Defendant City of Springfield granted Defendant Mill Street Ieonic Properties, LLC, a Lodging House permit pursuant to the City of Springficld Zoning Ordinances. Plaintiff and her husband attempted to request « heating and was told that they had no tight to be heard and no rights under Defendant City of Springfield’s ordinances, by-laws 10. i. 12, 13, 14, 15, ‘or regulations for any form of due process or appeals procedure whereby denying her Due Process under the law. The entire site review and issuance of a lodging house permit was all done behind closed doors and without any public notice or hearing, Plaintiff was informed that Iconic was beginning construction and modification of the Mill Street property in order to make it a secured correctional facility to house convicted inmates whom desire substance abuse treatment under a Lodging Permit issued by the City of Springfield. Atno point in time was any permit ever issued to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the Hampden County House of Corrections, Prior to the issuance of this permit, Hampden County Deputy Sheriff Michae! Goldberg held the property in a corporation controlled solely by him. Deputy Sheriff Goldberg submitted rigged bids with the assistance and aide of Michael Ashe twice. ‘The Division of Capital and Asset Management rejected those bids twice. Goldberg then went into bankruptcy. A company by the name of Blue Tarp Redevelopment LLC d/b/a MGM Springficld aided and abetted Michael D. Goldberg aided and abetted Ashe by floating a $400,000.00 Joan, In January of 2016, it was discovered that Goldberg was foreclosed on and Teonie purchased the Mill Sireot Property but only after sitting on the deed and other documents before recording them. Iconic then submitted an application for Zoning Review indicating “see attached” referring to Goldberg's provious applications indicating “nothing has changed.” 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22, 23. 4, ‘The City of Springfield then issued Lodging Permits without any form of hearing or notice to the abutters. Countl: Violation of G.L. ¢. 40A Springfield Zoning Ordinance Section 2.2 Plaintiff incorporates all allegations herein by reference, The Building Commissioner claims at some point in time he conducted a site review and concluded that the property owned by Iconic on Mill Street met the City of Springfield's Zoning Requirements for a Lodging House. ‘The Building Commissioner issued a Lodging House permit without the necessary requirements or without City Council approval. The subject property located on Mill Street does not met the definitions of Lodging House as defined by the City of Springfield Ordinances: LODGING HOUSE, A BUILDING in which lodgings are rented to four (4) or more person who do not constitute a family and who occupy the premises as a principal place of residence, including a single-room occupancy (SRO) dwelling with shared kitchen and Gining facilities, Teonie is purposing placing a minimum security correctional facility at the location which isnot a lodging house. ‘The occupants are convicted inmates and under sentence. ‘The occupants do not share a common kitchen and must be regulated pursuant to the Department of Corrections. Iconic does not maintain control over the occupants as required by any Lodging House Permit issued to a private corporation. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. aL. 32. 33, Violation of G.L. ¢. 404, Springfield Zonin, ‘The Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations herein by reference. In or about late February or early March 2016, the Building Commissioner issued a Lodging Permit to Iconic to operate a lodging house out of 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts is located between two single family homes. ‘The permit was issued prior to any City Council approval. ‘The City of Springfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 12.4 specifically requires that while the actual determination is up to the Building Commissioner, “a lodging house is a use allowed only by City Council Special Permit Review. ‘The City Council never approved the subject permit issued by the Building ‘Commissioner. Count I: Violation of G.L. c. 404 Springfield Zoning Ordinance Section 2.2 Plaintif¥ incorporates all allegations by reference herei The Building Commissioner and his counsel argue that “Howard Street” operated by the Hampden County Sheriff's Department was a non-conforming building or nonconforming use of a building or land under the City of Springfield Zoning Ordinances, ‘The permit in this case was issued to Iconic, LLC, not “Howard Street.” 34, 35. 36. 37. 38, 39, 40. 41, 42, 43, ‘The permit was issued for 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts, not Howard Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. ‘Non-Conforming uses run with the property and do not transfer to new structures or land. The 149 Mill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts property does not qualify as a non- conforming use, CountIV: Violation of M.G.L. c, 140, § 22 G.L.¢. 408 Plaintif® incorporate all allegations herein by reference, In or about February or carly March of 2016, the Building Commissioner issued a Lodging Permit to Iconic, LLC. Iconic, LLC is proposing to construct a minimum security correctional facility at the subject location, “Lodging house”, as used in sections twenty-two to thirty-one, inclusive, shall mean a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions, but shall not include dormitories of charitable or philanthropic institutions or convalescent or nursing homes licensed under section seventy-one of chapier one hundred and eleven or rest homes so licensed, or group residences liecnsed. or regulated by agencies of the commonwealth. ‘The issuance of the Lodging Permit by the Building Commissioner to Iconic, LLC for the proposed use violated M.G.L ¢. 140, § 22 as it cannot be a group residence licensed ot regulated by the Commonwealth, A minimum correction facility is regulated by the Commonwealth, CountV: Violation of M.G.L, ¢, 140, § 27 GL. ©. 408 Plaintiff incorporate all allegations herein by reference, 45. 46. 48. 49. In or about February or early March of 2016, the Building Commissioner issued Lodging Permit to Iconic, LLC, a private corporation, ‘The subject permit was issued with the prerequisites statutory conditions for a Lodging House. Section 27 provides as follows: every inn holder, and every lodging house keeper required so to do under section twenty-eight, and every person who shall conduct, control, manage or operate, directly or indirectly, any recreational camp, overnight camp or cabin, motel or manufactured housing community shall keep or cause to be kept, in perinanent form, a register in which shall be recorded the true name ot name in ordinary use and the residence of every person engaging or occupying a private room averaging Jess than four hundred square feet floor area, excepting a private dining toom not containing a bed or couch, or opening into a room containing a bed or couch, for any period of the day or night in any part of the premises controlled by the licensee, together with a true and accurate record of the room assigned to such person and of the day and hour when such room is assigned. The entry of the names of the person engaging a room and of the occupants of said room shall be made by said person engeging said room or by an occupant thereof, except that when five or more members of a business, fratemal, ot social group or other group having a common interest aro engaging rooms, they may designate one person to make said entry on their behalf and prior to occupancy. Until the entry of such name and the record of the room has been made, such person shell not be allowed to occupy privately any room upon the licensed premises, Such register shall be retained by the holder of the license for a period of at least one year after the date of the last entry therein, and shall be open to the inspection of the licensing authorities, their agents and the police, Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than three months, or both, Iconic, LLC cannot possible maintain the control or registry of lodgers as required under the statutory law for any private corporation operating a lodging house. Count VI: Violation of Dover Amendment G.L. ¢. 40A, § 3. Defendant City of Springfield through its building commissioner and Zoning Board of Appeals granted a “lodging house” permit to Teonic, LLC. Teonic, LLC is a private, for profit-corporation, 50. 51 52, 53. 54, Defendant City of Springfield contends that Iconic, LLC qualified for a permit via the so- called Dover Amendment exception to zoning. Plaintiff contend that such Amendment does not permit the building of correctional facilities absence compliance with the City of Springfield Zoning Laws which also afford the Plaintiffs a right to be heard. Plaintiff contends that the predominant purpose of a correctional facility is not “education,” as defined by the act and the Supreme Judicial Court in Whitinsville Retirement Society, Inc. v. Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757, 760 (1985). Plaintiff contend that the Dover Amendment does not allow for the unilateral ‘construction of a Correctional Facility which abuts her property. Plaintiff contends that such application of the Dover Amendment by the Defendants affects her property values and quality of life. Count VII; Violation of Due Process of Law City of Springfield Ordinance 112.41 55. Plaintiff incorporate all allegations by reference herein. 56. The City of Springfield in this case engaged in procedural irregularities in the manner in which they granted the Lodging House Permit to Teonic, LLC. 57. First, they allowed Iconic, LLC to rely upon the application of Michael D. Goldberg when it was originally filed and rejected rather than its own, 58. The proposed property was not zoned for Lodging House Use and required a fall public hearing and a full City Council Council Vote, 59. After the City Council voted on the subject Appeal, the Plaintif?'s thisty-day appeal period would begin. 60. The City Ordinance itself with this majority requirement prevents a Plaintiff from being able to obtain appealable relief due to its onerous burden. 61, The ZBA did not stand indifferent in this particular case as its Chairman was conflicted as his mother had direct financial and other interest with the Hampden County Sheriff's Department, 62. Had this conflict been disclosed publicly, the Plaintiff would have moved for this voting member to recuse himself in order to obtain a fair and impartial hearing. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request as follows: 1. This Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Defendant leonic from starting construction of a minimum security correctional facility next to her home; 2. This Court issue a Permanent Injunction whereby declaring the City's issuance of the subject permits illegal; 3. Court find for the Plaintiff on all counts; 4. ‘The Court make any other order it deems just and fair, 5. The Court award the Plaintiff her reasonable attorney fees and cost, Respectfully submitted, Patricia Taste-Ray By her attorney, earioaeah Shawn P. Allyn 98 Lower Westfield Road, Suite 3 Holyoke, MA 01040 BBO#643227 ‘Tel: (413) 538-7118 Fax: (413) 538-6199 sallyn@allynandball.com. a LAW OFFICES ALLYN & BALL, P.C. 98 LOWER WASTHIELD ROAD SRD FLOOR HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS 01040 413 7538-7118 FACSIMILE S13/538.6199 Shawn P. Allyn Lisa A. Ball* Via Fax: 413-739-7740 April 13, 2016 Daniel Morrissey Bacon & Wilson, P.C. 33 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 RE: Rhonda Stowell, et al v. Springfield ZBA, et al WMCAC Dear Attorney Morrissey: Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up on my clients’ request for a Special Meeting to address the Tier Review and issuance of a building permit for the above-referenced location They are requesting an early May 2016 meeting, As you are eware, it is currently zoned for a “lodging house,” not a group residential home. Notwithstanding this, a Correctional Facility (jail) is not a group home, The Dover Amendment is the common name for Massachusetts Generel Law Chapter 404, Section 3. This law exempts agricultural, religious, and educational corporations from certain zoning restrictions. It allows a structure that provides certain services to ignore local zoning laws end build the facility it needs to provide those services. The Dover Amendment allows many developers to build facilities that are substantially larger than zoning laws would ordinarily allow or which would be considered inappropriate, by some, for the neighborhood, ‘The Amendment is considered by many to be overly broad but the exemption granted by the Dover Amendment has been narrowed somewhat by recent court decisions. While a corporation ‘must merely be nonprofit and legally able to engage in educational activities to be considered a “nonprofit educational corporation," the actual use of 2 particular facility must have education as the “primary or dominant purpose" to qualify for Dover protection. See Whitinsville Retirement Society, inc. v. Northbridge, 394 Mass, 757, 760 (1985). Page 2 of 3 ‘The Dover Amenciment provides, in relevant part: “INJor shall any [zoning] ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulstions concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements" (emphasis added). The Supreme Judicial Court has construed this text of this statute on a number of occasions. See, eg. Whitinsville, supra at 759-761; Fitchburg Hous. Auth, v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg, 380 Mass. 869, 872-874 (1980) (Fitchburg); Kure v. Board of Appeals of '. Reading, 341 Mass. 110, 113 (1960). In so doing, we have emphasized that the word "education," as employed in Massachusetts statutes and cases, "is a broad and comprehensive term." Mount Hermon Boys'Sch. v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139, 146 (1887). The Court wrote “we have also, however, recognized two commonsense and interrelated limits on the statute's application. The first is that the Dover Amendment protects only those usas of fand and those structures that have as their bona fide goal something that can reasonably be described as "educationally significant." Whitinsville, supra at 7641 n.3. The second Is that the educationally significant goal must be the "primary or dominant” purpose for which the land or structures will be used. Id. at 760, citing Cummington Sch, of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 587, 603 (1977), See Fitchburg, supra at 874. The primary and dominant purpose of a correctional facility is to punish individuals who have been committed crimes, it is not educational. The goal of punishment also encompasses rehabilitation, however, if one is to construe rehabilitation as predominately educational, than any correctional facility, including a State’s prison could be placed in any neighborhood throughout the Commonwealth, It is predicable that the Commonwealth will argue that it cannot discriminate against those individuals who suffer from drug or alcoho! abuse; however, there has been no controlling authority in the Commonwealth on this issue as is relates to inmates in correctional facilities efflicted by drug and alcohol addiction being “disabled.” Moreover, there is no reason treatment cannot be provided to them in properly zoned correctional facilities; such as the Hampden County House of Corrections. This is a dangerous reading of the Dover Amendment as it would allow a correctional facility to be put anywhere within any city or town on the claim of “education.” This was not the intent of Page 3 of 3 the Dover Amendment. This reading would also exempt Defendant Ashe from standard zoning Jaws, which in turn results in an erosion of the home rule and the ability of the town to plan for safe quards and the rights of all the citizens. This is also done to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and their rights as abutting property owners. Based on how this permit was granted, the Petitioners are also claiming violation of the following statutory provision, among other listed on their appeal form: G.L.c. AOA, § 6- Existing structures, uses = G.L. c. 40A, § 7- Failure to Enforce Existing Zoning Laws G.L.c. 40A, § 10- Variances A permit in this case should never have been issued without notice to the abutters and a public hearing, There is no authority that supports the Dover Amendment being used to set a jall Hook forward to hearing from you Sincerely, ‘Shawn P. Al LAW OFBICES . ALLYN & BALL, P.C. 58 LOWER WESTRIELD ROAD aRD FLOOR HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS 01049 413/536-7118 FACSIMILE 413/538-6199 Shawa P. Allyn* Lisa A. Ball* “A150 ADMETTED I ERNSYEVANIA May 11, 2016 Chairperson & Members Zoning Board of Appeals 70 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104 RE: Rhonda Stowell. ¢t al v, Springfield ZBA. et al. ‘WMCAC Dear Chairperson Doherty & Members of the Board: This letter serves to supplement my client's last cotrespondence with the Board, Since that time, [have been able to read an April 8, 2015 memorandum of law waitten by Edward Pikula, City Solicitor to Phil Dromey, Deputy Planning Director and Steven Desilets, Building Commissioner In that letter, Mr. Pikula asserts that Howard Street appears to meet the definition of “Lodging House” Set forth in the Springfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.2, General Terms Defined, which states: LODGING HOUSE, A BUILDING in which lodgings are rented to four (4) or more Persons who do not constitute 2 FAMILY and who occupy the premises as a principal place of cluding a single-room occupancy (SRO DWELLING with shared kitchen and oxesiden dining facilities. See Memo p.3 However, Attorney Piknla qualifies that the determination of whether something is a lodging house is up to the Building Commissioner, under the use table, a lodging house is a use allowed only by City Council Special Permit Review (See Zoning Ordinance Section 12.4). My client has asked for the original Special Permit and has not received it, ‘The Department of Housing and Urban Development has rejected that the Wester Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center is residential housing. HUD has indicated that jails arg not intended for residential occupancy by families. In any event, even if the City Council has approved a special permit, the sighting of this Correctional Facility violates that state statute which defines what a Lodging House is and specifically states that residential programs or any program thal has administrative oversight by the Coxtmonwealth is not & Lodging House, 1 The Statute provides as follows: M.G.LA. 140 § 22 § 22. “Lodging house” defined “Lodging house”, as used in sections twenty-two to thirty-one, inclusive, shall mean a house Where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions, bul shall not include dormitories of charitable or philanthropic institutions or convalescent or ninrsing houses Hoensed under section seventy-one of chapter one hundred and eleven or rest homes so licensed, or - ‘group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the commonwealth, gess Gas : Further, the common law under M.G.L, c. 140, § 22 does not support that a correctional institution is a residential Lodging House: ‘Two and three-funily residential properties in which each family unit was occupied by four Bnrelated college students were not “lodging houses” within scope of lodging houso act, and action for injunction would not lie to enforce statutory limitations on number of unrelated adult occupents who could be housed therein; stato statutes distinguished between “lodgers” and “tenants,” properties expressly designated “lodging houses” remained under primiaty caairol of their owner, statute's historical purpose was to address concerns with use of lodging houses a5 VeTME tbr immoral solicitation, and treating properties as lodging houses would tequire selective enforcement of statutory provisions. City of Worcester v, College Hill Properties, LLC (2013) 987 N.E.24 1236, 465 Mass, 134, Injunction 1376 Innkeepers 2 Innkeepers 5 Rental dwelling units containing four or moro unrelated college students as tenants were lodging houses subject to requirements of lodging house licensing statute, including requirements that owner install fire sprinkler systems in premises; group of four or more studeuts was not a single family unit for purposes of statute, since such an arrangement was not likely to lend itself to the formation of a stable and durable houschold. City of Woreasier v, College Hill Properties, LLC (2011) 956 N.E.24 1229, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 757, review granted 963 N.E.2d 728, 461 Mass. 1108, vacated 987 N.B.2d 1236, 465 Mass. 134. Health 393 Innkeepers 4. “Lodging house” is house in which lodgings are let, especially a house other than or motel,__Selyetti v. Building Inspector of Revere (1568) 33: 24 915, as And Plafining 1239, implies degree of peiiiianeneg in ooctipiticy at least as distinguished Tron tie tans fhotel amore wetommodations. Selvetti v. Building Inspector of Revere (1968) 233 N.E.3d 915, 353 Mass. 645. Zoning and Planning 1259 Moreover, the conditions of the permit issued to not oven require that the owner, who retains control of the Lodging House, comply with the State Law. As an example, M.GL. A. 140 § 27 provides as follows: M.G.LA. 140 § 27 § 27. Register; entry of names; condition precedent to occupancy; retention; inspection; penalty Every innholder, and every lodging house keeper required so to do under section twenty: ight, and every person who shall conduct, control, manage or operate, directly or indiectly, say recreational camp, overnight camp or cabin, motel or manufactured housing community shall keep ‘oF cause to be kept, ia permanent form, a rogister in which shall be recorded the trae name orname jn ordinary use and the residence of every person engaging or occupying a private room averaging kess then four hundred square feet floor area, excepting a private dining room not containing a bed oF couch, or opening into a room containing a bed or couch, for any period of the day or night in any part of the premises controlled by the licensee, together with a trae and accurate record of the room sssigned to such person and of the day and hour whea such room is assigned, The entry of the names of the person engaging 1 room and of the occupants of said room shall be made by safd Person engaging said room or by an occupant thereof, except that when five or more members of « business, fratemal, or social group or other group having a common interest are engaging rooms, they may designate one person to make said entry on their behalf and prior to occupancy. Until the snity of such name and the record of the room has been made, such person shall not be ellowed te cecupy privately any 700m upon the licensed premises. Such register shall be retained by the holder of the license for a period of at least one year after the date of the last entry therein, and shall be open to the inspection of the licensing authorities, their agents and the police. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less then one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more then three months, or both, Even under the current conditions attached to the pemnit, it does not comply with the mandates of the Lodge House Statutes. In this, the Appellant contends as follows: 1. A correctional facility is not residential! housing; 2. WMCAC is not a non-profit organization as defined by the statute; 3. Howard Street operated illegally as it was not a Lodging House and the City Council did not issue ¢ special permit for Howard Street as required by City of Springfield Ordinances, 4. The WMCAC is not a lodging house as defined by state law; 3 5. fit was a pre-onisting non-conforming use, then such use cannot violate state law; 6. ‘The state law specifically state such residential programs or programs with the Commonwealth's oversight are not lodging houses, WHEREFORE, the Appellants request that the subject permit be REVOKED. Respectfully submitted, § 22. “Lodging house” defined, MA ST 140 § 22 rR MGLA.140 622 § 22, “Lodging house” defined “Lodging house”, as in sections twenty-two to thine, inglusive, shall mean a ‘house where lodgings are let to four or ‘ogre pe § not y second degree of kindred to the person. person, conducting it and shall include. fretemity houses and dormitories, of educotional institutions, but hall not include, dormitories of cheritable or philanthropic institutions or convalescent or nursing homes licensed wader section seventy-one of hs Heensed, or group residences eae oF regulated by agencies of te comm Eelpe of het sine ob oneal ee ‘Credits, : EE : © Amended by $1196, e. 740; 1.1965, 6: 171; 81973, 481. vet ENS “Notes of Bevisions 5 Seed ‘ ‘ MGLA140§2, zaMasr wos : hoop Cpr tc List of 7 Notes of Decisions for § 22, “Lodging house” defined Notes Of Decisions (7) Construction and application Where zoning by-law specified as uses permitted in general rasidence district, those uses permitted in a single residence district and edcitionally “two-family dwellings and lodging houses,” and included in by-law was éefiation of @ hotel of lodging house as a building designed for use for paying guests, permanently or transienly, where more than three bedrooms are used for such purposes, there was no indication of an intent to allow motal in general residence district. Costa v. Board of Appeals of Watertovm (1960) 164 N.E.2d 149, 340 Mess. 380 . Zoning And Planning @» 1259 Lodging house ‘Two and throe-family residential properties in which each familly unit was occupied by four unrelated college Students were not ‘lodging houses’ within scope of lodging house act, and action for injunction would not ce to enforce statutory limitations on number of unrelated adult occupants who could be housed therein: state statules distinguished between ‘lodgers" and “tenants,” properties expressly designated “lodging houses" remalned under primary control of their o#mers, statute's historigal purpose was to address concems with use of lodging houses 88 venue for immoral solletation, and treating properties as lodging houses would require selective enforcement of statutory provisions. City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties, LLC (2013) 987 N.E.2d 1236, 405 Mass, - 134. ‘Injunction 1376 Innkeepers 2. Innkeepers -§ Rental dwoling units containing four or more unrelated college students as tenants were lodging houses subject fo requirements of lodging house lfoansing statute, including requirements that owner insteli fire sprinkler sysiems in premises; Group of four or more students was not a single family unit for pufposes of statute, since such an arrangement was not likely to lend itself to the formation of a stable end durable household. . City of Worcester v, College Hil Properties, LLC (2011) 956.N.E.2d 1222, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 757 , review granted 063 N.E2d 728, 461 Mass. 1108, vacated 987 N.E.2d 1236, 485 Mass. 134.” Health 393. innkoepers, 4 ‘Lodging house".is house in which lodgings are let, espectally a house other than an inn or motel, Selvettv. Building Inspector of Revere (1968) 233 N.E.2d 915, 363 Mass. 645 . “Zoning And Planning 1259. Term “lodging house" under zoning ordinance implies deare® of permanence In oocupancy atlodst es : distinguished from the tratisioney of hotel and mote! accommodations, Selvettiv. Building inspector of Revere (1968) 233 NE 2d ©16, 353 Mess, 645. Zoning And Planning 1269 . : —Enforcement, | : : : City officials" actions to enforco zoning ordinance probibiting tenting to mora than thece unrelated adult occupants aiid, state lodging hotisé act, Including ten eitatioris by city inepoctor for felling to,femove sposl of tole! paper, filing of complaints for excessive trash, and foots’ warranlless entries Into premises 1g determing rimber of V due process violation... College Hill Properiles, LLC v, City of 1093 Municipal Corporations 607 Zoning occupants, Uid not rise to level of substantive Worcester, D.Mass.2015, 2015 WL 6737147. “Constitutional Law 4 andPlanming 4774 SES Sone woalnst oly officials based on their alleged selective énforcament of red, and stalule of imitations Tor fling § 1@83 action against owners for Violations of act, even if owners were not aware at that tine that others simllerly situated received cease and desist orders for violations of act, but no {urther enforcement actions were taken ageinst them. “College Hil Properiies, LLC y, City of Worcester, DMass.2018, 2015 Wi. 5737147... Limitation of Actions .5(18) : : eo €Gual protection ‘claims a ing 0 id staté lodging house act A ‘commenced, at latest, when city fled civil actions ‘WESTLAW “© 2016 Thomson Reulers. No claim i6 orghtal US. Government M.G.LA.140§ 27 §.7-Regiser; entry of names; condition precedent to occupancy; retention; inspection; penaly Gomecasss Fvepy danholiet, and overy lodging house keoper required so to do under section twentyelgh, and eyery paren who stall Sandie Sento), menage or operate, directly, or indtetly, any rereadonal camp, oversight eas cs cin, rote or zanuifactored housing commurity shal keep or eause to be kap, in peronent form, ‘a xegisferin which shell be recorced the true nathe or name in ordinery use and the residence of every person engaging or peo ‘han four hundred sinare feet floor arco, excepting a private i. not conta 9 foom coblaining 8 bed or conch, for any period of the day dr night in ay part of ths pieinn lier assigned, The entry of the names of the person engaging a room and of é made person ecgtging sald room or by an occupant thereof, except that when five-or mare member of &buainens ffeteral, or Social proup or other group having a common icleest are engaging rooms ley ray designate oe ‘Porson to rske seid Gh fic behalf tad ptr to occupaity, Until the Eny of much name andthe iota of he Fou hie heer mse, such person Stall ct be allowed fo osciy privately any s90h upo the lensed premases, Such sepstr stall be Telained by the holder of. sr lcense fo a petiod of a least one year alter te dat ofthe Ist entry thciein, and shall be pea tothe aopeien of he Hcensing wutiotes their Agents and the police, Whoever violnes aay provision ofthis ection tall be punished by a fine of not Ie than one hundred nor more than five umdred dollars cr by imptsooment for aol sore ‘han three mais, or both. Cres degled by S80 F188, 26 § S884. 6 1964, su 98 4H SUIS. Ca BOL HL, $B. MLA. 140 § 27, Ma ST 140§97. _ -Cutrent dhrough Chapter 94 ofthe 3016 2nd Ania Session —° A f mers ‘Stbie Hana Ranga Nockin woigal US, dasha Woks End of Document on Rel WESTLAW, “© 2016 Thoms: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS May 31,2016 MEMO: To: » Anthony Wilson, City Clerk From: Vanessa Adorno Subject: Board of Appeals Address: 149-165 Mill Street Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016 Enclosed you will find: : Appeal for Variation from the Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: Application to the Zoning Board of. Appeals, deter to Chairperson Legal Notice Notice of. Hearing Minutes - Decision of the Board of Appeals Notice of Decision Notice of ‘Variance _ Sincerely, Building Commissioner ‘Rome BrdaDehaty, Chsipason Clty of Springfed, Massachusetts Daniel Maxissey Zoning Board of Appeals , Jose Gonzalez 70 Tapley Street, Springfield, MA 01104 ‘Walter Gould (413)750-2434 ‘Ana Pasco Ea Date_March 29, 2016 APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS (11 Copies with 11 Original Signatures) Applicant Please See Attached Address, City/Towa_ ‘Telephone Number, Legal Ownerof Property _MMl Stet lela, LLG ‘Address’ 149 it Steet cae City/Town Springfield ‘Telephone unkown : Application is hereby made for a vatistion fiom the requirements ftom’ the Springfield Zoning Ordinance, ‘Atticle 4 Section 4640 Paragraph ‘i ae The premises afocted is located ab 740 il Steet shown on city plotplan # , and recorded in Book. Page. a the Hampden County Registry of Deeds, Description of PROPOSED or EXISTING Building or Stuotnre 1) “Size ofbuilding: “Lengthy feet, Width fect deep, . 52,085 29. Height Stories feet. ° 2.) Ocgupency or usé (of each floor) vat 3.) Building Zoning District rc re aS 4). Date of Brection, - ° 5.) Type of Construction (check one, if applicable to this vaslance) 1 J LV vi 6) > “Has there bees a previous variance on this premises? 7), Desesiption of proposed work or use -resosiguon ofan dang kang, 8.) The principle reasons upon which I base this epplication are as followa Magaencnge a ‘Please see atiacheid — e snonrstt eduostondl group home. Vbleise 4, secon 8, 11,48, 16 zs 9.) Are alliaxes and mauaticipel charges curently duo on the propecty, ‘paid in fall? yes "RO wow Jalienaaloklag hots Génot, they must be paid by the hearing) ‘The undersigned certifies that this information is eccireto and conplete. RECEIVED APR 7 2016 : BUILDING DIvigiON, greene SION, “Anthorized Agent : LAW oFRICEs i‘ ALLYN & BALL, B.C. Se LOWER WESTIERLD xOAD SxD L002 HOLYOKE, MASsACHUSENTS O19 apse FACSIMILE 413/538-6199 | Shawn, Allyn Tiss A. Bale, VIA FAX: 413-787-6524 | “su20 ArnarED airaRYLYOA March 11, 2016 City of Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals 70 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104 : RE: WMCAC- 149 will Street, Springfield, Massachusetts Patricla Taste Ray, Rhonda Stowell, John Chake v, City of Soringfield Zoning Board & Mill Street Iconic, LLC Dear Sir or Madam: Tals letter is written to request an Immediate review and appeal of your decision allowing @ site, evlew of the above-reference property end classifying a Minimal Security Correctional Facilty 5.2 Residential Group Home pursuant to the Dover Amendment. | would also like copies ofall Notices sent to any abutters as to the application’and hearin, a notice of public heating was advertised pursuant to the Open Meeting Laws, please pro\ ‘my office with a copy of the Notice. The residents were provided with no Due Process under the City’s Zoning Policy relative to your board’s new. Classification of the subject property, “ notice of 8 Heht ta be heard, The policy as implemented is also facially unconstitutional. Fdwaid Pikuls, City Solicitor represented in Federal Court that Notice wes provided to the abutters end residents of your action and right to. appeal stich actions. «Please provide a copies of those notices. . ‘My clients intend on seeking an Immediate G.L. c. 40A Appeal of the decision. ‘sincerely, ‘Edward -Pikalla, Esq.

    Вам также может понравиться