Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 6 · February 25, 1998 Z.B. as to whether Beagle bought the property in good faith. Likewise, Beagle's knowledge that the property's previous owner had been denied a variance didn't affect his "good faith" status. While the denial of a previous application might be relevant to what relief the board deemed appropriate, nothing in the statutory guidelines precluded an owner from seeking a variance when a prior application had been denied. Nor did Beagle's knowledge of the earlier variance ..denial constitute a self- inflicted hardship that barred him from getting a variance. This would mean nonconforming property could never be developed with a variance after the property was sold, which, would make the variance statute meaningless with regard to such property. Unlike the property owners in the cases the neighbor cited, Beagle didn't violate a zoning ordinance and th. en seek relief from the consequences. Instead, he followed the procedures prescribed by state law and the city zoning ordinance to get a variance before he tried to use the property. see also: Board of Zoning Appeals v. Fowler, 114 S.E. 2d 753 (1960). see also: Board of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, 106 S.E.2d 755 (1959). Commercial Use-- Condo association challenges variance for beauty salon in residential zone 'The 39 Joy Street Condomi'nium Association v. Board of Appeal of Boston, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, No. SJC-07532 (Massachusetts) 1998 Ciancarelli ran a beauty salon in the Beacon Hill section of the city of Boston. He bought a nearby condominium, Unit C, from the city for $70,000. The bUilding was a four-story complex built in 1905 pursuant to a building permit authorizing a tenement house for three families and an office on the ground floor. The ground floor and the basement, Unit C, contained about 490 and 390 square feet, respectively. The ground floor had a wood facade and a large plate glass window that didn't open. Outside the building was a recessed stoop that served only Unit C; the residential units had a separate entrance. Unit C's basement was unfinished, and contained the utility lines and boilers for the building. The other three units, one per floor, were 750 square feet each. Since the building had been built, Unit C had been used for various commercial purposes. Before Ciancarelli bought it, the city passed a zoning ordinance that allowed only residential use of the building. Later, the building was converted to condominium units. The master deed provided that the building would contain three residential units and one commercial unit. When the building went condo, Unit C's previous commercial occupant left, and the city took the unit for failure to pay taxes. Unit C was vacant until Ciancarelli bought it from the city. Ciancarelli applied to the city board of appeal for a variance permitting commercial use of Unit C. After he got the variance, he spent $30,000 renovating the ground floor and then moved his beauty salon into the building. The condo association appealed to court, claiming Ciancarelli had no right to apply for a variance because he failed to first get the association's permission.