Case Name: City of Chicopee vs. Peter Jakubowski & another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1964-12-08
Citations: 348 Mass. 230
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Chicopee vs. Peter Jakubowski & another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 348
Pages: 230–232

Head Matter:
City of Chicopee vs. Peter Jakubowski & another.
Hampden.
November 4, 1964
December 8, 1964.
Present: Wilkins, C.J., Spalding, Whittemore, Kirk, & Reardon, JJ.
Joseph A. Nowak (Robert L. Nowak with him) for the defendants.
No argument or brief for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Beabdoh, J.
The defendants appeal from a final decree enjoining them "from using the premises at #19 Saratoga Avenue in Chicopee for the business of manufacturing, selling, painting, glazing, and baEiog^eramics and^onducting classes in.Infraction for painting ceramics . . ." The bill of complaint was brought against them by the city and alleged a violation of the zoning ordinance in that their business was being conducted in a district zoned "Residence 'A'."
A master found as follows: The defendants are the owners of real property in a residence "A" zone at 19 Saratoga Avenue, Chicopee. On April 7, 1958, the defendant Peter Jakubowski applied to the building inspector of the city for a permit to construct a "one car garage and storage" to be situated at the rear of the premises, and a permit was granted on that date. Thereafter the defendant constructed a building having the outward appearance of a garage and storage building with overhead garage doors on the northerly front; but the entrance to the building is through * ' an ordinary door which is situated on the front of the building . . ." The building, which has been utilized as a location for instruction iff ceramics, canñoFbe used as a garage and storage'place Because MTs "equipped with shelving, tables, chairs, greenware, molds, statues, and kilns. It is also equipped with one toilet and one washstand. The defendant Anna Jakubowski has been available at certain hours of the day for purposes of instruction, with a charge of $1 being made for that service. Classes have been held by her for those who are desirous of acquiring skills in working with ceramics. The building has not been used for the manufacture of greenware. "From these operations [the teaching of groups and individuals in the art of painting, glazing, and baking ceramics] the defendants realized a
The zoning ordinance of the city provides that "within any Residence 'A' as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other structure nor any premises shall be used and no building or other structure or part of a building shall be erected which is intended or designed to be used in whole or in part for any industry, trade, manufacturing or commercial purposes or for other than one or more of the following specified purposes," one of which is " [s]chools, colleges, public libraries, public museums," G-eneral Laws c. 40A, § 2, provides in part that "no ordinance or by-law which prohibits or limits the use of land • • • for any educational purpose which is . . . public shall be valid." Our inquiry thus seeks to determine whether instruction in ceramics as described above fll constitutes a "school" or public." (2) fulfills an "educational purpose which is
In its ordinary meaning the word "school" denotes a" place for systematic instruction in any branch orJirancEes of knowledge, m defining the phrase "institution of education" as employed in its State Constitution, the Kentucky court said, " [I]t means a place where systematic instruction in any or all of the useful branches of learning is given by methods common to schools and institutions of learning . . ." Kesselring v. Bonnycastle Club, Inc. 299 Ky. 585, 589. In addition to the limitation suggested by the definition, a limitation is also imparted here by the juxtaposition of the word "schools" in the ordinance with "colleges, public libraries, public museums." The activities which occurred in the defendants ' garage do not appear to meet that standard of organized training which is to be expected in a sefiooUy^ñH~weWule7^therefOreTthafit was liota^scEoiyl.
Turning to the statute, it might be argued that the building was being employed for an "educational purpose." Whether this be so or not, and upon this phase of the case we venture no opinion, it is clear to us, assuming the operation there served an edunationalplrpose, that that purpose was not public. That a privately owned institution which benefits the pnhlicTTia.v serve ah educational purpose..winch is public was demonstrated in Worcester v. New England Inst. & New England Sch. of Accounting, Inc. 335 Mass. 486, where there was extensive discussion on this point. The classes in ceramics conducted by the defendants do not meet the standards laid down in t'KiTVl^orcester case.- The defendants have been operating- a private enterprise and thus are not entitled to the benefits of the exemption of the statute. Kurz v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, 341 Mass. 110.
Decree affirmed.