Resident urges enforcement, cites state law and court order in long-running zoning dispute

Jeffrey Petrillo told the Lawrence Ordinance Committee on Sept. 9 that A & M Auto Body and its owner have repeatedly violated city zoning rules on an adjacent lot and that the city has not enforced a Superior Court order restricting nonconforming commercial use at that address.

Petrillo said state law limits civil fines and the timing of re-petitioning: "fines are $300 per day per violation," he told the committee while citing the Massachusetts statute that sets the daily maximum for zoning fines. He also cited what he described as a controlling state-law restriction — citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 48, §5 and §6 and the 1961 case Kitty v. City of Springfield — that, he said, prevents a defeated zoning petition from returning to the council for two years after unfavorable action. Petrillo asked the council to recognize that the earliest permissible return date would be Nov. 7, 2026, not one year after the recent defeat.

Petrillo also reviewed a string of local ordinance citations and a Superior Court order (Judge Lou, 03/29/2021) that he said enjoins certain activity on Lot 18, including outside storage and excavation conducted without required permits. He told the committee he had repeatedly sought enforcement from the city’s Inspectional Services Division (ISD) and that, in his view, ISD had failed to issue required citations or to enforce the judge’s order.

Committee members asked clarifying questions and pressed Petrillo on what concrete council action he seeks. The committee chair said the body could accept his materials as an awareness briefing and advised that if Petrillo wanted the council to take a particular legal or ordinance action, he should put a specific motion or ordinance change on a future agenda.

Formal action: the committee voted to withdraw document 27925 from the committee agenda with the chair’s statement that the committee had satisfied Petrillo’s request for an ordinance-committee hearing and to place the matter on the full City Council agenda for Sept. 18. The transcript records the motion to withdraw, a second, and an "aye" voice vote; committee members told Petrillo he may return to the council with a specific proposed ordinance or motion if he wants substantive council action.

Why it matters: Petrillo described alleged ongoing noncompliance with multiple local zoning rules (he cited local ordinances he identified as 29-9, 29-11, 29-13, 29-14/15, 29-23 and related sections), the presence of an outdoor storage container he said was installed May 25, 2018, and repeated failures he attributes to city enforcement staff. He urged the committee to ensure the city enforces the Superior Court order and Massachusetts zoning law.

Council members acknowledged the breadth of Petrillo’s packet and said the committee had received the documents and heard his concerns; they told him that enforcement is the responsibility of ISD and that any specific ordinance change must be filed as an agenda item for council consideration. The committee did not adopt any enforcement actions at the meeting; it forwarded Petrillo’s materials to the full council as the meeting packet indicated.