Lombard v. Board of Appeal of Wellesley
| Decision Date | 08 February 1965 |
| Citation | 348 Mass. 788,204 N.E.2d 471 |
| Parties | L. Linder LOMBARD v. BOARD OF APPEAL OF WELLESLEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Harry E. Warren, Town Counsel (John M. Mullen, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Stuart Macmillan, Boston (Jackson W. Wright, Jr., Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
Mrs. Lombard built her house and a narrow one car garage in 1937 when automobiles were smaller than today and before certain zoning restrictions became applicable. To enlarge the garage sufficiently to accommodate reasonably a single modern vehicle of domestic manufacture, she sought a permit (allowable under § XIX of the town zoning by-law) to widen the garage in a manner which would encroach only eighteen inches upon the twenty foot side yard area now required by the zoning by-law. Only one member of the board of appeal voted to deny her application. Unanimous approval was required. See G.L. c. 40A, § 19, as amended through St.1955, c. 349. Upon appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, as amended through St.1960, c. 365, a judge of the Superior Court made careful subsidiary findings. He correctly concluded that, in the circumstances, the denial of this trivial exception was arbitrary and capricious. Mahoney v. Board of Appeals of Winchester, 344 Mass. 598, 600-601, 183 N.E.2d 850. See Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. 555, 560, 120 N.E.2d 916, 919, where it was recognized that an exception to the general rule there stated might exist where the decision of a board of appeal 'is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary and so illegal.'
Final decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston
...topographical conditions thereof.” Boston Zoning Code, art. 7, § 7.3(a). 10. Compare Lombard v. Board of Appeal of Wellesley, 348 Mass. 788, 789, 204 N.E.2d 471 (1965), where, in the context of an appeal of the denial of a special permit for the minor expansion of a prior nonconforming stru......
-
Roberts-Haverhill Associates v. City Council of Haverhill
...Mahoney v. Board of Appeals of Winchester, 344 Mass. 598, 601--602, 183 N.E.2d 850 (1962); Lombard v. Board of Appeal of Wellesley, 348 Mass. 788, 204 N.E.2d 471 (1965). Simply annulling (for whatever reason) a decision which denies an application for such a permit or for a variance will be......
-
Town of Marblehead v. Deery
...discussed in Mahoney v. Board of Appeals of Winchester, 344 Mass. 598, 601--602, 183 N.E.2d 850; Lombard v. Board of Appeal of Wellesley, 348 Mass. 788, 204 N.E.2d 471, and Lapenas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 533--534, 226 N.E.2d 361. There is here involved no prope......
-
Lapenas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton
...(Discretionary denial of a permit under G.L. c. 40A, § 4, on an untenable ground annulled); accord, Lombard v. Board of Appeal of Wellesley, 348 Mass. 788, 204 N.E.2d 471. Here the board has not expressly indicated that, except for the untenable grounds stated, it would have granted the var......