Hunt v. Board of Appeals

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hunt v. Board of Appeals

227 N.E.2d 742, 352 Mass. 782

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 5, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 N.E.2d 742 (Hunt v. Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. Board of Appeals, 227 N.E.2d 742, 352 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The board of appeals granted a variance to Jacobs which would permit him to use a building for “research and development and manufacture of component parts” in the single residence A-l district of the town on the locus, bought by Jacobs in 1964, which had been part of a tract where, in connection with the residence, a turkey farm had been operated at and prior to the enactment of the zoning bylaw in 1960. The plaintiffs, who are residents and persons aggrieved by the decision, appeal under G. L. c. 40A, § 21, as amended through St. 1960, c. 365. The judge, after hearing, quite rightly annulled the decision of the board. The board made none of the findings requisite to the granting of a variance. G. L. c. 40A, § 15. Barnhart v. Board of Appeals of Scituate, 343 Mass. 455. Coolidge v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 343 Mass. 742, 744-745. The findings of the judge, on the other hand, show clearly that the board could not make the findings requisite for a variance. Since all interested parties were before the court and given a full opportunity to be heard on the merits, and since all substantial issues have been determined on the merits and the relief granted is in accordance with G. L. c. 40A, § 21, it is unnecessary to consider the disposition of the demurrer.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The board of appeals granted a variance to Jacobs which would permit him to use a building for “research and development and manufacture of component parts” in the single residence A-l district of the town on the locus, bought by Jacobs in 1964, which had been part of a tract where, in connection with the residence, a turkey farm had been operated at and prior to the enactment of the zoning bylaw in 1960. The plaintiffs, who are residents and persons aggrieved by the decision, appeal under G. L. c. 40A, § 21, as amended through St. 1960, c. 365. The judge, after hearing, quite rightly annulled the decision of the board. The board made none of the findings requisite to the granting of a variance. G. L. c. 40A, § 15. Barnhart v. Board of Appeals of Scituate, 343 Mass. 455. Coolidge v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 343 Mass. 742, 744-745. The findings of the judge, on the other hand, show clearly that the board could not make the findings requisite for a variance. Since all interested parties were before the court and given a full opportunity to be heard on the merits, and since all substantial issues have been determined on the merits and the relief granted is in accordance with G. L. c. 40A, § 21, it is unnecessary to consider the disposition of the demurrer.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.E.2d 742, 352 Mass. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-board-of-appeals-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack