Bruzzese v. Board of Appeals of Hingham

• Decision Date: 03 January 1962
• Citation: 343 Mass. 421,179 N.E.2d 269
• Parties: Peter BRUZZESE v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF HINGHAM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 269

179 N.E.2d 269

343 Mass. 421

Peter BRUZZESE v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF HINGHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

Argued Nov. 8, 1961.

Decided Jan. 3, 1962.

John R. Hally, Boston, for defendant.

Angelo D. Spirito, Hingham, for plaintiff.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.

SPIEGEL, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant board from a final decree in the Superior Court adjudging that the decision of the board denying a zoning variance was 'unreasonable and arbitrary' and hence invalid. The judge made a 'Finding and Order for Decree' which he later adopted as a report of material facts.

The plaintiff owns a lot of land on Hersey Street in the town of Hingham containing 36,735 square feet on which there is a single family dwelling. The lot is situated in what is known under the town's zoning by-law as a 'Residence District A.' This district requires a lot size of 20,000 square feet with 125 feet of frontage on a way.

Sometime prior to June 16, 1960, the plaintiff constructed a foundation on the rear part of his land and moved a barn which had been located on the front portion to that foundation. He then applied to the building commissioner for a permit to 'convert the barn into a house, or a dwelling,' which was denied. Following the denial, the plaintiff appealed to the board praying that 'a variance may be granted from the terms of Section IX Item 4 of the Zoning By Law.'

The plaintiff proposed to subdivide his parcel of land into two lots, one having an area of 12,600 square feet with a frontage on Hersey Street of ninety feet on which the existing dwelling would be located, the other having an area of 24,135 square feet with no frontage on Hersey Street on which the barn would be located. The lot fronting on Hersey Street would be nonconforming to the zoning by-law because it would lack the necessary area and frontage and thus would require a variance. There was also a question whether the rear lot had any frontage on a way and therefore whether it too was nonconforming.

After two hearings, the board found no evidence of hardship on the plaintiff and denied the variance. On appeal to the Superior Court, there was evidence that other buildings in the zoning district were located on lots which did not conform to the by-law and that the plaintiff expended money anticipating the granting of the variance. The judge found the following: '* * * substantial hardship on applicant were he forced to have so much footage useless for building in such an area; * * * no detriment to the public good and no derogation from the intent or purpose of the zoning by-law.'

Paragraph 3 of G.L. c. 40A, § 15 (amended through St.1958, c. 381) provides that a zoning board of appeals shall have power '[t]o authorize upon appeal * * * with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an existing building thereon a variance from the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by-law where, owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel or such building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the appellant, and where desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such...