Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the board of appeals of Provincetown challenged a Superior Court decision that annulled its denial of a special permit to the Red Inn for altering its nonconforming use under section 2110 of the Provincetown zoning by-law. The Red Inn, owned by R. J. Abare Realty Trust and Red Inn Corp., sought to renovate its facilities, claiming it was an inn with dining facilities. Despite neighborhood concerns about parking and congestion, the trial judge found that the renovations would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and annulled the board's decision. Upon appeal, the appellate court concluded that the trial judge's characterization of the Red Inn as an inn was erroneous, as evidence showed it did not provide transient accommodations post-1978. The ruling emphasized that no vested rights protect nonconforming use against zoning by-law changes unless the use was established before restrictive ordinances. The case was remanded to determine the appropriateness of the special permit under section 2110, considering the commercial nature of the area and potential benefits of the proposed alterations. The court highlighted that the board's decision lacked a reasonable basis and was arbitrary, necessitating the remand for reconsideration under established legal principles.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitrary and Capricious Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined the board's decision to deny the special permit was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis, leading to its annulment.
Reasoning: His ruling indicated that the board's decision lacked a reasonable basis and was arbitrary, leading him to annul it and remand for the issuance of a special permit.
Characterization of Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found the trial judge's factual determination of the Red Inn as an inn was clearly erroneous based on the evidence of its use.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that the characterization of the Red Inn as an inn was clearly erroneous, as the evidence did not support that it provided suitable accommodations for transient guests prior to 1978.
Nonconforming Use under Zoning By-Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the Red Inn's use as an inn with dining facilities constituted a nonconforming use that could be altered under Provincetown's zoning by-law.
Reasoning: The trial judge conducted a de novo hearing and found that the nonconforming use of the Red Inn was as an inn with dining facilities, contrary to the board's conclusion.
Standard for Issuance of Special Permitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case examined the conditions under which a special permit might be issued for the alteration of a nonconforming use, focusing on whether the changes were substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Reasoning: The Red Inn applied for the special permit...which allows alterations to nonconforming structures if they are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Vested Rights in Nonconforming Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that no vested rights exist against changes in zoning by-law, even after a permit is issued and work begins.
Reasoning: No protected use exists against changes in zoning by-law, even after a permit is issued and work begins, as established in Everett v. Capitol Motor Transp. Co., 330 Mass. 417 (1953).
Zoning By-Law and Nonconforming Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court analyzed the impact of zoning by-law changes on nonconforming use, emphasizing that intended but uncommenced uses do not establish such use.
Reasoning: In Building Inspector of Malden v. Werlin Realty, Inc., 349 Mass. 623 (1965), it was determined that intended but uncommenced uses prior to the adoption of restrictive ordinances do not establish a nonconforming use.