Murphy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lawrence

• Decision Date: 02 October 1974
• Citation: 2 Mass.App.Ct. 876,317 N.E.2d 90
• Parties: Robert J. MURPHY et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF LAWRENCE et al.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 90

317 N.E.2d 90

2 Mass.App.Ct. 876

Robert J. MURPHY et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF LAWRENCE et al.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued Nov. 20, 1973.

Decided Oct. 2, 1974.

Thomas H. Collins, Lawrence, for plaintiffs.

Norman M. Shack, Lawrence, for defendants.

Before ROSE, KEVILLE and GOODMAN, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

This is an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals (board) granting a special permit to the defendants Dandretta to convert a building on their property in Lawrence to multi-family apartments. One of the plaintiffs, Robert J. Murphy, appealed from the final decree entered in the Superior Court sustaining the decision of the board. The judge heard evidence, reviewed exhibits, took a view of the locus and made thorough voluntary findings of fact. As the evidence is reported, we review all questions of law, fact and discretion, but we do not disturb the findings of the judge unless they are plainly wrong. Broderick v. Board of Appeal of Boston, --- Mass. ---, ---, ^a 280 N.E. 670 (1972). The locus is a lot containing approximately 52,000 square feet, located in a single residence (R1--A) district. By way of special permit, the Dandrettas sought to convert an existing two-family residence on the property (which was a nonconforming use, having existed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance) into a five-family dwelling. The property fronts on East Haverhill Street, a major thoroughfare, while the rear of the locus is on Ridge Road, a quieter, residential street. In granting the permit, the board noted that increased real estate taxes and maintenance costs made it 'unreasonable' to limit the use of the property to a two-family unit 'especially in view of the acknowledged shortgage of sound housing units.' The permit required that no exterior structural additions be made and that off-street parking for a required number of cars be provided. The plaintiffs had objected to the permit on the basis of increased traffic and noise, depreciation of property values, deterioration of the neighborhood and the possibility of more such changes. There were no allegations of procedural irregularities in the granting of the permits. The judge, after a hearing de novo (G.L. c. 40A, § 21), found that the granting of the permit would not have 'a materially detrimental effect on the neighborhood,' was 'in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lawrence Zoning By-Law,' and that the board acted within its authority; his subsidiary findings and the evidence support his conclusions. The...