Posts tagged "MacLaurin"

MacLaurin, et al. v. City of Holyoke, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-130-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-11865 SJC-11866   ROBERT MacLAURIN[1] & another[2]  vs.  CITY OF HOLYOKE & others.[3]   ROBERT MacLAURIN[4] & another[5]  vs.  CITY OF HOLYOKE & others.[6]       Hampden.     September 10, 2015. – August 18, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[7]     Fire Prevention.  Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari.  Administrative Law, Hearing.       Civil actions commenced in the Hampden Division of the Superior Court Department on April 26, 2012, and May 14, 2012, respectively.   After transfer to the Western Division of the Housing Court Department and consolidation, the case was heard by Robert Fields, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Thomas D. Moore for the plaintiffs. Kara Lamb Cunha for the defendants. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Jason R. Ferenc for Greater Holyoke Rental Housing Association Joseph N. Schneiderman for Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts. Maura Healey, Attorney General, Benjamin K. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Steven P. Rourke, Special Assistant Attorney General, & Peter Senopoulos for the State Fire Marshal.     LENK, J.  We are called upon in these consolidated cases to construe G. L. c. 148, § 26I, the residential sprinkler provision, one of a number of provisions requiring the installation of automatic sprinkler systems contained in G. L. c. 148, the fire prevention act.  The residential sprinkler provision mandates the installation of automatic sprinklers in new residential buildings of four or more units, and in such existing buildings when they are “substantially rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction.”  See G. L. c. 148, § 26I. In 2006, the plaintiff, Robert MacLaurin,[8] purchased the second of two vacant apartment buildings in the city of Holyoke (city), which he intended to rehabilitate and return to occupancy.  As existing residential buildings of four or more units, the buildings were subject to the residential sprinkler provision.  MacLaurin contends that the renovations he undertook on the buildings do not meet the statutory standard triggering the requirement that sprinklers be installed.  Concluding, to the contrary, that the two buildings had been substantially rehabilitated within the meaning of the residential sprinkler provision, the city’s fire chief ordered, without a hearing, that automatic sprinkler systems be installed in each building. The residential […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 18, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,