Giurleo v. McCusker
Massachusetts Land Court
2010 Mass. LCR LEXIS 44 (2010)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Belle Soloway owned a house in a single-residence district in Westwood, Massachusetts. Soloway’s house was a preexisting nonconforming structure because it did not conform to the minimum dimensional requirements of the residential district. The town’s bylaws provided that the zoning board may grant a special permit to extend, alter, or change a nonconforming structure if such a change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. Soloway filed an application with the Town of Westwood Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) (defendant) seeking special permits to construct an addition on her house to use as an apartment for her elderly father. The town held a hearing on Soloway’s application, and Soloway’s neighbors, James and Elaine Giurleo (plaintiffs), testified in opposition to the proposed apartment because it would be very close to their property line. The ZBA granted Soloway’s application on the grounds that any adverse effects of the proposed apartment would be outweighed by its beneficial impact on the town. The ZBA found that the construction would not have harmed property values, would not be dangerous to public health, and would not be detrimental to the normal use of the adjacent property. The Giurleos appealed the ZBA’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Long, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.