Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Z.B. February 25, 1998 .... Page 7 The association also claimed he didn't deserve a variance. Ciancarelli would be entitled to a variance under the city zoning code only if there were special circumstances peculiar to the building that deprived him of reasonable use of the building, the variance was the minimum variance needed to overcome a substantial hardship, and the variance would be in harmony with the intent of the zoning code and wouldn't injure the neighborhood. The court set aside the board's decision. It found Ciancarelli had no right to seek a variance without the association's permission, and that denying the variance wouldn't pose a substantial .hardship. Ciancarelli appealed, claiming he didn't need the association's permission to seek a variance because he owned Unit C. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case fram the appeals court to itself. DECISION: Affirmed. Ciancarelli had a right to seekl a variance without the association's permission, but he wasn't entitled to a variance. Ciancarelli sought a variance to alter the use of his unit alone - property he owned. His ability to seek a variance was subject only to the provisions of the master deed and the condo bylaws~ and neither prohi.?..~t~d, him from seeking a variance absent the association's consent or from using tine unit for commercial purposes. In fact, the master deed provided for a commercial unit in the building. This express endorsement of Unit C's commercial use, and the negligible effect it would have on the building's common areas, gave Ciancarelli an independent right to seek a variance. The judge, however, properly set aside the board's decision because denying the variance posed no substantial hardship to Ciancaretli. Though Unit C was small, the ground floor alone had enough living space to comply with the code requirements for residential housing regarding natural light, ventilation, and size. Likewisb, Unit C's "storefront facade" didn't require granting a'variance because a number of buildings in the neighborhood with similar facades were converted to and used for residential purposes despite their commercial appearance. The estimated cost of rer/ovating the unit for residential purposes, $30,000 to $60,000, wasn't enough to constitute "substantial hardship." Even if restricting Unit C to residential use did constitute a substantial hardship, no variance was warranted because Ciancarelli failed to meet another requirement of the zoning code. Specifically, there was no evidence that the size, storefront facade, and renovation costs were peculiar'to Unit C. The suc- cessful conversion of other commercial buildings to residences showed Unit C was by no means unique in the Beacon Hill area. see also: McEaney v. Chestnut Hill Realty Corp., 650 N.E. 2d 93 (1995). Appeal. Can owners appeal liquor license suspensions directly to court? Jim O. Inc. d/b/a Ernie's Avenue Tavern v. City Cou~cil of the City of Cedar Rapids, Supreme Court of Iowa, No. 349 / 96-!297 (Iowa) 1998 Jim O. Inc. and Carnicle (owners) ran taverns in the city of Cedar Rapids,