Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

March 25, 2004 -- Page 5 The board denied the application, stating the requested variance was sub- stantial and would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. DiPaci sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. DiPaci appealed, arguing the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. DECISION: ~ed. The board's decision was correct. Local zoning boards had broad discretion in considering variance applica- tions. Consequently, a zoning board determination was sustained as long as it had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence. DiPaci's requested variance would have resulted in the creation of three substandard lots, each substantially less than the required minimum lot area for the neighborhood. Thus, the proposed subdivision would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neigJaborhood because of its nonconforming, small lots. Ultimately, based on the above, a rational basis and substantial evidence existed for the decision. see also: Ifrah v. Utschig, 774 N.£.2d 732 (2002). see also: Ceballos v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Mount Pleasant, 304 A.D.2d 575 (2003). Spot Zoning -- Town amends zoning map for new development Property unzoned, but surrounded by light manufacturing Citation: Hanna v. Town of Framingham, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 02-P-1330 (2004) /VIASSACHUSET'I'S (02/11/04) --In 1998, Boston Properties Inc. entered into an a~eement with the Ivlassachusetts Turnp~e Authohty to develop a parcel of land for office, retail, and hotel use. At the time of the agreement, the proposed site was not within any zoning district and. was not subject to the neighboring town of Framingham's zoning laws. The area surrounding the property was zoned for light manufacturing use. A proposed article to amend the town's zoning map to include the property within the li~ht manufacturing district was proposed, but not enacted. Follow~ lng discussions regarding traffic mitigation on a neighboring highway and the town's need to preserve open space, Boston Properties executed a covenant a~eeing to perform and fund various traffic mitigation measures and open spaces witbZu Framingham. However, this covenant was dependent upon the map being amended. After an agreement on the covenant was reached, the town zoning map was amended to place the property within the light manufacturing district. A neighboring prope,m./owner sued, and the court ruled in favor of'the town. The property owner appealed, arguing the town had engaged in illegal spot 2004 ~3,uinlan Publishing Group. ,Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information please cai[ (617) 542-0048. 133