You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

John Donnelly & Sons, Inc. v. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BOARD

Citations: 282 N.E.2d 661; 361 Mass. 746; 1972 Mass. LEXIS 953

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; May 5, 1972; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The judicial opinion addresses the case of John Donnelly Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Board, where the plaintiff, Donnelly, seeks review of the denial of a permit renewal for a rooftop billboard. The Outdoor Advertising Board, citing a local by-law and regulation 9K, concluded that the billboard violated zoning restrictions due to its proximity to civic landmarks, leading to the permit's non-renewal and the order for removal. The board's decision reflects a significant policy shift following a 1969 amendment that prioritized local regulations over previous board policies. This case underscores the authority of local municipalities to regulate billboards under General Laws c. 93, § 29-33, as well as the precedence of regulation 9K in enforcing local zoning by-laws. Donnelly's claim of a vested right under G.L.c. 40A. 5 was dismissed, as the permit was deemed revocable and nonpermanent. The decision was upheld, affirming that local governance can impose stricter controls on billboard permits, even in the face of longstanding installations. The board's ruling is supported by legal precedents that recognize the expanded governmental power to regulate billboards for public interest, without constitutional conflicts.

Legal Issues Addressed

Authority of Local Municipalities in Billboard Regulation

Application: Local municipalities have the authority to regulate billboards under General Laws c. 93, § 29-33, which is aligned with the board’s regulations.

Reasoning: The Avon by-law, which restricts billboards within 500 feet of specific civic areas, is deemed reasonable and not arbitrary, reinforcing that local regulations are permissible under G.L. c. 93, § 29-33 and the board’s regulations.

Impact of Policy Changes on Permit Renewals

Application: The policy shift towards greater local governance in billboard regulation justifies the refusal to renew existing permits, like Donnelly’s.

Reasoning: Refusal to renew the billboard permit is attributed to a shift in administrative policy aimed at regulating billboards for public interest.

Nonconforming Use and Revocable Permits

Application: Donnelly's argument for protection under G.L.c. 40A. 5 is invalidated because the billboard operates under a revocable permit, not a vested nonconforming use.

Reasoning: The court concludes that the billboard does not possess vested rights as a protected nonconforming use under G.L.c. 40A. 5.

Regulation 9K Precedence over Previous Board Policies

Application: Regulation 9K supersedes earlier board policies, ensuring local by-laws can restrict billboard permits even if the board would have previously granted them.

Reasoning: The interpretation of 9K indicates it takes precedence over other regulatory provisions, emphasizing that local by-laws can restrict billboard permits even if the board would have otherwise granted them.

Termination of Billboard Permits under Local Zoning By-laws

Application: The refusal to renew Donnelly's billboard permit was based on the Avon by-law restricting billboards within 500 feet of civic areas.

Reasoning: The board determined that the billboard was located within 500 feet of specified public and religious structures, concluding it violated the by-law and regulation 9K, leading to the denial of its permit renewal.