Justice F. Dana Winslow
Homeowners sought to set aside the Board of Zoning Appeals' (BZA) decision denying their application for a floor area variance permitting them certain renovations to their house. Evidence was presented at a hearing by an expert that the proposed expansion would be "aesthetically enhancing," and was insubstantial in light of the surrounding properties. He also noted the BZA recently granted similar variances to nearby homeowners, and the proposal would increase the value of petitioners' and adjoining residences. Most of the neighbors spoke in support of the application at the hearing, and there was no opposition. Yet, the BZA denied the application stating it was an "undesirable change" in the character of the community resulting in additional "bulk" to the home, and creating a "crowded appearance" in the neighborhood. The court found the BZA's decision lacked rational support in the evidentiary record, noting its findings were conclusory and unsubstantiated by reference to relevant supporting hearing facts. It also ruled the evidence belied the BZA's vague "community burden" finding every neighboring homeowner expressed support for the application. Thus, it granted the petition to annul the decision and remitted same to the BZA for issuance of the variance.
