ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNSEL 

 Peter F. Mines, Counsel 



Counsel was successful this year in obtaining a landmark Superior Court 

 decision sustaining the rights of all Massachusetts farmers where they are 

 unreasonably regulated by a municipality. 



Judge Elbert Tuttle, Esq., Justice of the Superior Court of the 

 Commonwealth, wrote the Decision after recognizing the status of this Department 

 as an Intervenor on behalf of the Spence Family Farm of the Town of Reading. 



The case will probably be the leading precedent in this jurisdiction from 

 now on and springs forth from a fascinating statement of facts and law - all 

 contained in the Decision of this leading jurist. The Defendant Town of Reading 

 did not appeal and therefore the case stands as the last word of adjudication on 

 the issues raised. Following is the exact judicial quotation: 



STATEMENT OF THE CASE, 

 FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW AND DECISION 



These two cases involve the sale of agricultural products by William Spence 

 & Sons, Inc., d/b/a Spence Brothers (Spence) from a seven-acre parcel of land 

 owned by Spence in the Town of Reading, which parcel is currently being uti- 

 lized by Spence to grow agricultural products. The parcel involved lies within 

 a residential district as defined by the Reading Zoning Bylaws and contains 

 approximately seven acres. Spence, during each Christmas season, sells 

 Christmas trees from said property which are grown by Spence on land owned by 

 Spence in Canada. The issue in this case is whether a farmer owning land within 

 a residential district can sell farm- type products on that land not grown on the 

 land involved but grown on land owned by the farmer in another location under 

 the provisions of Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws. Because this 

 matter has serious impact on farming interests within the Commonwealth of 

 Massachusetts, the Court allowed a motion to intervene made by the 

 Massachusetts State Department of Food and Agriculture. 



The case was presented to the Court on a Stipulation of Facts. 



Section 3 of Chapter 40A provides in part as follows: 



"No zoning ordinance or bylaw shall... or shall any ordinance or bylaw 

 prohibit, unreasonably regulate or require a special permit for the use of land 

 for the primary purpose of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or 

 viticulture; nor prohibit or unreasonably regulate the expansion or reconstruc- 

 tion of existing structures thereon for the primary purpose of agriculture, 

 floriculture, or viticulture, including those facilities for the sale of pro- 

 duce, and wine and dairy products, insofar as a majority of such products for 

 sale have been produced by the owner of the land on which the facility is 

 located, except that all such activities may not be limited to produced by the 

 owner of the land on which the facility is located, except that all such activi- 

 ties may be limited to parcels of more than five acres in areas not zoned for 

 agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture..." 



The Court can find no case interpreting Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the 

 General Laws. 



49 



