Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
DiRico v. Board of Appeals of Quincy
Citations: 171 N.E.2d 144; 341 Mass. 607; 1961 Mass. LEXIS 820
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; January 5, 1961; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court
A bill in equity was filed under G.L.c. 40A. 21, appealing a decision by the Quincy Board of Appeals, which granted a variance to Benjamin Kurtzman for remodeling a building into a professional office. The plaintiffs, owners of nearby residential properties, contested the decision. The court found that the Board acted within its authority. Kurtzman purchased the property at 435 Adams Street in 1938, which had a history of nonconforming uses, including automobile repair and a tonic bottling factory, and had been idle since 1954. The building is located in a 'B' residence district, near an 'A' district restricted to single-family residences. The variance allows for significant renovation, converting the structure into twelve or fourteen office suites with separate facilities, while maintaining the existing outline and changing the roof style. The project will include a parking area and is estimated to cost at least $65,000. The court concluded that the remodel would enhance the neighborhood's appearance and alleviate financial hardship for Kurtzman. The opinion concludes that the variance granted by the Superior Court was erroneous and should not have been permitted. Key legal principles regarding variances emphasize that such powers must be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances, with careful consideration for the purpose of zoning ordinances, which is to protect the property rights of others. Residential zones are intended to shield residences from business encroachment, as introducing a business in these areas typically diminishes the value of neighboring residential properties. Despite the potential commercial benefits of the property in question, the preservation of neighboring residential property rights is deemed critically important. The evidence, including photographs and plans, indicates that the land is well-suited for residential construction, contradicting any justification for converting it into an office space. The court finds that the proposed variance cannot be granted without causing substantial detriment to public good or undermining the zoning ordinance's intent, a prerequisite that was not established. The ruling references previous cases to support its decision, leading to the conclusion that the board of appeals exceeded its authority. Consequently, the decree is reversed, and an order is issued for the clerk of court to send an attested copy of this decision to the board of appeals and the city's inspector of buildings within thirty days.