Zaltman v. Board of Appeals of Stoneham
| Decision Date | 08 May 1970 |
| Citation | 258 N.E.2d 565,357 Mass. 482 |
| Parties | Simon ZALTMAN v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF STONEHAM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank M. Geremonte, Stoneham, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.
This is a bill in equity by way of an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 21, from a decision of the board of appeals of Stoneham (board) denying the plaintiff a zoning exception to build a convalescent home partly in a residential area. The judge made findings of fact, and entered a decree that the board's decision was within its authority and required no modification. The plaintiff appealed. The evidence is reported.
Findings of the judge include the following. The plaintiff is the owner of two and one-half acres of vacant land situated on the southerly side of Franklin Street in Stoneham. For a depth of 100 feet southerly from Franklin Street the area is zoned for residential purposes as 'Residence B,' which allows the construction and use of convalescent homes. The remainder of the plaintiff's property is in a 'Residence A' zone, which does not permit convalescent homes. The frontage of the property on Franklin Street contains woods and a high ledge, and rises to a height of thirty to thirty-five feet before leveling off.
Article II, § 6, of the zoning by-law of Stoneham, which provides for exceptions, reads:
On November 20, 1968, the plaintiff requested a special permit to extend a convalescent home he proposed to construct in the 'B' zone of his property fifty feet into the more restricted 'A' zone, also owned by him. After a public hearing, the board denied the request on the ground that it 'felt the proposed structure and use would not substantially serve the public welfare nor was it in the best interest, or the most appropriate use for this area.'
The judge found that the board, about the same time the plaintiff's application was denied, granted an exception to another applicant for a convalescent home on the opposite side of Franklin Street. He further found that the plaintiff's land is 'partly covered by ledge in such location that the proposed building can be constructed more economically, and the total land of the * * * (plaintiff) can be more satisfactorily used, if the proposed exception...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wendy's v. Board of Appeal of Billerica
...(1999), quoting MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 635, 639, 255 N.E.2d 347 (1970); Zaltman v. Board of Appeals of Stoneham, 357 Mass. 482, 485, 258 N.E.2d 565 (1970). Although the judge determines the facts, it is "the board's evaluation of the seriousness of the problem, ......
-
Fogelman v. Town of Chatham
...application of the zoning ordinance or by-law may not validly call for the exercise of judgment (see Zaltman v. Board of Appeals of Stoneham, 357 Mass. 482, 483-485, 258 N.E.2d 565 [1970]; S. Volpe & Co. v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 4 Mass.App. at 362, 348 N.E.2d 807) or require findings......
-
Forsyth School For Dental Hygienists v. Board of Registration in Dentistry
...Gulf Oil Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Framingham, 355 Mass. 275, 277, 244 N.E.2d 311 (1969). See Zaltman v. Board of Appeals of Stoneham, 357 Mass. 482, 484-485, 258 N.E.2d 565 (1970). The board had before it, in its deliberations, the application from the school with Dr. Lobene's and Dr. M......
-
Josephs v. Board of Appeals of Brookline
...Gulf Oil Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Framingham, 355 Mass. 275, 277, 244 N.E.2d 311, and cases cited. Zaltman v. Board of Appeals of Stoneham, 357 Mass. 482, 484--485, 258 N.E.2d 565; Strazzulla v. Building Inspector of Wellesley, 357 Mass. 691, 698, 260 N.E.2d 163. That discretion, howeve......