Legal Opinion · Dissent

Board of Aldermen v. Maniace

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 18, 1999Published

1DissentIreland, J.

(dissenting, with whom Lynch and Fried, JJ., join). I agree with both courts below, which concluded that the decision filed here did not constitute a final action. I would uphold a constructive grant for the applicants because a decision, although timely filed, is not a “final action” for the purposes of G. L. c. 40A, § 9, unless the special permit granting authority (SPGA) provides supporting reasons.

The clear statutory language directs a SPGA to provide reasons for its decision. “The [SPGA] shall cause to be made a detailed record of its proceedings, indicating the vote of each member upon…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Capone v. Zoning Board of Appeals of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  2. Building Inspector of Attleboro v. Attleboro LandfillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Lane v. Board of SelectmenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  4. Security Mills Ltd. Partnership v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  5. Board of Aldermen v. ManiaceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API