Bellalta v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline, 481 Mass. 372 (2019)
Click here for the text of the full decision.
In this case, the court addressed a dispute concerning zoning regulations and nonconforming residential structures under Massachusetts General Laws c. 40A, § 6. The defendants sought to expand their two-family home by adding 677 square feet of living space through the construction of a dormer and modifications to the roof. Their property already exceeded the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) under the town’s zoning bylaw, making it a nonconforming structure.
The central issue was whether the proposed expansion would increase the nonconforming nature of the house, and if so, whether the defendants were required to obtain both a special permit and a variance to proceed with the project. The local zoning board determined that while the expansion would increase the FAR, it would not result in a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, and granted the defendants’ request for a special permit.
The plaintiffs, neighboring homeowners, challenged this decision, arguing that a variance should also be required because the proposed expansion exceeded the town’s FAR limits. However, the court ruled that under G. L. c. 40A, § 6, homeowners of single- or two-family residences are entitled to certain protections for preexisting nonconforming structures. These protections mean that if an alteration to a nonconforming structure does not intensify its nonconformities to the point of substantial detriment to the neighborhood, only a special permit is necessary. A variance is not required unless explicitly mandated by the statute or local bylaw.
The court affirmed the zoning board’s decision, finding that the defendants were not required to obtain a variance. The court emphasized that forcing homeowners to go through the more burdensome process of obtaining both a special permit and a variance would undermine the protections afforded by the law to single- and two-family homeowners. It also noted that the town’s zoning bylaw could not impose stricter requirements than those set forth in G. L. c. 40A, § 6, which allows for certain modifications to nonconforming properties without the need for a variance.
Judgment:
The court upheld the zoning board’s decision, ruling that the defendants could proceed with their home expansion based on the granted special permit and that no variance was necessary.
