Laserfiche WebLink
of Commonwealth-immunity from zoning applies to the <br /> Commonwealth, not to private individuals. <br /> 2. Mr. Cook intends to use the grant area for a profit generating business. <br /> The land will not be devoted to an essential government function or <br /> any action reasonably related to an essential government function. <br /> Thus, the doctrine of Commonwealth-immunity does not apply. <br /> 3. Generally, zoning is concerned with the use of property, without <br /> regard to ownership of the property involved. CHR General Inc. v. <br /> Newton, 387 Mass. 351 (1982). The use at issue is commercial in <br /> nature and will be engaged in by an individual with a profit motive. <br /> This type of use is the garden-variety type that is always subject to <br /> zoning regulation. <br /> For all these reasons, the Building Inspector's determination is erroneous <br /> and must be reversed. <br /> C. The Aquaculture Cages Are Structures Within The Meaning Of <br /> The Zoning Bylaw Definition. <br /> The Building Inspector determined that the aquaculture cages and <br /> associated equipment are not structures. The Building Inspector did not, <br /> however, explain the basis for his determination. <br /> The Petitioners contend that the cages are "structures" within the <br /> meaning of the definition. The Bylaw defines "structures" as follows: <br /> "Structure — A combination of material assembled at a fixed <br /> location to give support or shelter, such as a building, tower <br /> framework, platform, bin, sign or the like. " <br /> The cages at issue are made of wire mesh and are 4 ft. by 4 ft. in size. <br /> The cages are designed to provide a framework for Mr. Cook to grow shellfish <br /> and they are designed to provide shelter to the shellfish. The cages will be <br /> 15 <br />