11/22/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

rw May 18 04 09: 08p P• 13 Articulated concerns about increased noise, increased artificial light,decreased privacy. and septic o provide abutters the requisite standing to bring systems, where unchallenged, ..have been found t zoning appeals. Bertrand v Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct_ 912, 912 (2003). In considering an appeal of a variance to develop two lots each containing approximately 20,000 square feet in a 40,000 square foot.zone,the Bertrand court did not find the concerns.of plaintiffs to be ill- founded or speculative"[e]specially given the close quarters involved :_ ., Id. Regarding the interests of the trustee,Shaw expressed her concern that development . of locus would necessitate disturbing the cliff at the rear of locus and could cause erasion to lot 40. Elli s has presented no evidence challenging the presumption of standing enjoyed by the trustee of the Deerfield Acres Trust. Under G. L. c. 40A, § 10, a board of appeals may grant a variance only where it "specifically finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions,shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but,not. affecting generally the zoning district in which it is -located, a. literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-lam=would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the petitioner-or appellant,and that desirablerelief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nulli Eying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law" The person seeking a variance bears theburden of demonstrating the statutory prerequisites have been met. See Dion v Board ofApueals of Waltham,344 Mass.547,555-556(1962);Kirkwood v. Board of Arm als of Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423,427(1984)_ "(A) decision of the board of appeals granting a variance cannot stand unless the board specifically finds that each statutory requirement has been met." Planning Bd. of Springfield v Board of Appeals of Springfield, 357 Mass. 460, 4.62 (1969); Barnhart v Board of Appeals of Scituate 343 Mass. 455, 457 (1962). While acknowledging the criteria of G.L.c. 40A, § 10,the ZBA failed to make each 12