F- Jim livcs in Worcester, Massachusetts. He owns a downtown Worchester property that is zoned for commerical office space. There are plenty of office spaces available in Worchester, and Jim does not feel that it would be wise to build another one. He wishes to build a gas station to service the down town traffic.
I What is the standard Jim must show to get a variance to allow him to build the gas station?
R- The business owners sought review of the decision following the decree that upheld a zoning variance that was granted to the gas station owner. The issue was ehether the trial court erred in upholding the granting of the variance to the gas station owner. The court found that the facts and findings did not jusify the trial court's conclusion. The court held that no hardship to the gas station owner was shown affecting his property and not affecting the zoning district in which it was located. The court found that the hardship caused by the taking of the former site was irrelevant. The court held that if there was occasion to change the uses permitted on the land, because of the general effect of the shift to business, such was for the town to consider by way of amendment. It ws concluded that the finding that relief could be afforded without substantal detriment to the pulic good and with out derogating from the purpose of by law did not support the variance. The court held that the board of appeals exceeded its authority. The court reversed the decree that granted a zoing variance to the gas station owner.
Shacka v. Board of Appeals, 341 Mass. 593 (Mass. 1961)
The proeprty and the locus were both on a 1-80 zone district which permitted gas stations and other commercial uses. A new zoning code divided the locus into three seperate zoning districts. The land around it and the property owner's land was almost entirely business and industrial uses. The gas station filed an application for a permit. The building commissioner did not grant the permit, but on appeal the board granted the variance. The trial court affirmed the board's decision and the court reversed. The court held that the variance was invalid and that granting of a variance to permit the owner of the locus to incrase profits did not quaify as a hardship permitting the granting of variance. Each requirement of the statute must be satisfied before a variance may be granted and the board failed to make findings sufficient to demonstrate a substantial hardship. The court reversed the trial court's affirmance of the board's decision and annulled the variance from zoning code granted by the board.
Wolfson v. Sun Oil Co., 357 Mass. 87 (Mass. 1970)
A
C