395.Nectow.v.Cambridge - Saul M. Nectow v. City of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Saul M. Nectow v. City of Cambridge Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 260 Mass. 441; 157 N.E. 618 January 17, 1927, Argued July 1, 1927, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: Bill in equity, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on December 31, 1924, and afterwards amended, seeking to have the zoning ordinance of the city of Cambridge declared null and void and the defendant inspector of buildings ordered to issue a permit to the plaintiff "to erect any lawful building upon said tract, disregarding the provisions of said alleged ordinance." The suit was referred to a master. The zoning ordinance in question was adopted by the city council of Cambridge on December 31, 1923, and approved by the mayor on January 7, 1924. Other material facts found by the master are stated in the opinion. By order of Pierce, J., an interlocutory decree was entered confirming the master's report, and the suit was reported to the full court for determination. DISPOSITION: Bill dismissed. COUNSEL: P. J. Nelligan, City Solicitor, for the defendants. J. E. Hannigan, (M. L. Orlov with him,) for the plaintiff. JUDGES: Chief Justice Rugg, Justices Braley, Crosby, and Wait. OPINION BY: Chief Justice Rugg OPINION [1] This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks relief from the terms of a zoning ordinance as to certain of his land. It is not now questioned that the ordinance is valid so far as concerns the formalities of its adoption. See St. 1925, c. 87. The plaintiff at times here material was the owner of a tract of land in Cambridge containing about one hundred forty thousand square feet. It was situated on the southeasterly corner of Brookline Street and Henry Street. Its frontage on Brookline Street, a main avenue of travel, was about three hundred and five feet, and on Henry Street about seven hundred and fifty feet. It was somewhat irregular in shape, narrowing toward the rear or easterly end, where it was bounded by the Grand Junction Branch of the Boston and Albany Railroad. Along the southerly side, being about eight hundred feet in length, is a twenty-five-foot passageway designed for a spur track from the Grand Junction Branch. By the zoning ordinance the land here in question and hereafter called the locus, being that part of the larger tract directly on the corner of Brookline Street and 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Henry Street and containing about twenty-nine thousand square feet, was placed in the district designated as a "residence use district" and in a building district described as "R 3," while the remainder of the tract, containing approximately one hundred eleven thousand square feet and including the entire passageway, was placed in the district designated "unrestricted" and in a building district described as "U 2." The locus, thus placed in a residence use district, has a frontage of about three hundred and five feet on Brookline Street, its westerly boundary, one hundred feet on Henry Street, its northerly boundary, and bounds easterly on the remainder of the tract about two hundred and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/27/2009 for the course 220 395 taught by Professor Perry,m during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 9

395.Nectow.v.Cambridge - Saul M. Nectow v. City of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online