Planning Board of Northborough v. Board of Appeals of Northborough

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Planning Board of Northborough v. Board of Appeals of Northborough

254 N.E.2d 262, 356 Mass. 732, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 916

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 N.E.2d 262 (Planning Board of Northborough v. Board of Appeals of Northborough) 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

Planning Board of Northborough v. Board of Appeals of Northborough, 254 N.E.2d 262, 356 Mass. 732, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 916 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

The Northborough planning board under G. L. c. 40A, § 21, appealed to the Superior Court from the granting of a variance by the Northborough zoning board of appeals which authorized a certain area to be used as a “drive-in theatre” in a district zoned for residential purposes. A judge of the Superior Court entered a decree annulling the variance. The case is here on the owner’s appeal from the [733]*733decree. The judge made a report of material facts and the evidence is reported. The record clearly shows that the board of appeals did not find or include in its decision that the granting of the variance would be “without substantial detriment to the public good.” G. L. c. 40A, § 15, cl. 3, as amended through St. 1958, c. 381. The burden is on the applicant for the variance and upon the board of appeals to go forward with evidence that the statutory prerequisites for the granting of a variance have been met. Sullivan v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 345 Mass. 117, 119-120. In view of the foregoing we see no need to discuss other aspects of the case.

Henry P. Grady (John A. Romano with him) for Catherine A. Sheehan. Richard W. Mirick for the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed.

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

The Northborough planning board under G. L. c. 40A, § 21, appealed to the Superior Court from the granting of a variance by the Northborough zoning board of appeals which authorized a certain area to be used as a “drive-in theatre” in a district zoned for residential purposes. A judge of the Superior Court entered a decree annulling the variance. The case is here on the owner’s appeal from the [733]*733decree. The judge made a report of material facts and the evidence is reported. The record clearly shows that the board of appeals did not find or include in its decision that the granting of the variance would be “without substantial detriment to the public good.” G. L. c. 40A, § 15, cl. 3, as amended through St. 1958, c. 381. The burden is on the applicant for the variance and upon the board of appeals to go forward with evidence that the statutory prerequisites for the granting of a variance have been met. Sullivan v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 345 Mass. 117, 119-120. In view of the foregoing we see no need to discuss other aspects of the case.

Henry P. Grady (John A. Romano with him) for Catherine A. Sheehan. Richard W. Mirick for the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 N.E.2d 262, 356 Mass. 732, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planning-board-of-northborough-v-board-of-appeals-of-northborough-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack