Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

Page 8 -- July 10, 2005 To establish that the special exception sought would substantially serve the public convenience and welfare, an applicant had to show that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, welfare, and morals. As such, the board's decisi6n was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial record evidence. see also: Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578 (2001). see also: Lischio v. Zoning Board of Review, 8!8 A.2d 685 (2003). Appeal -- Homeowner claims development will affect driveway access Local authorities rule homeowner can't challenge zoning decision Citation: Butler v. City of Waltham, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 02-P-1512 (2005) b/LASSACHUSETTS (05/05/05) ~ Cornerstone Corporation obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the city of Waltham a special permit and variances it needed to develop three parcels of land in the city. Butler lived near the planned development on Trapelo Road. Part of the city's approval of the development required Cornerstone to install new traffic lights to improve existing traffic flow on Trapelo'Road. Butler challenged the board's zoning decision, but his challenge was de~ nied because he was not a person aggrieved by the decision and, as a conse- quence, was not within the class of people who could appeal. Butler sued, arguing the new development would adversely affeCt his abil- ity to access his nearby driveway. The court ruled in favor of the city. Butler appealed, claiming the development's effect on his driveway access gave him the right to challenge the zoning decision. DECISION: Affirmed. Butler Could not challenge the zoning decision. The trial court focused on the traffic queues the new traffic sig-nals on Trapelo Road were likely to generate and the impact the traffic would have on Butler. The primary evidence was the testimony of Hajec, Butler's traffic expert. Hajec testified the queues would extend approximately 275 feet west of the west traffic signal 95 percent of the time in the peak morning hours, and approxi: mately 300 feet 95 percent of the time during the peak evening hours. The distance between the west signal and Butler's driveway was 380 feet. Even if Hajec's testimony was sufficient, that testimony did not support Butler's claim that the queues would adversely affect his ability to leave his driveway during peak hours. In fact, Hajec's testimony suggested the traffic queues would stretch back from the Lntersection to Butler's driveway less often than they currently did. see also: Denneny v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Seekonk, 794 N.E. 2d 1269 (2003). see also: Nickerson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 761 N.E. 2d 544 (2002). © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more intormation please call (617) 542-8048. 2~8