Can you critque my paper? I attached IRAC style instructions after the paper. Here is the question:
your client, Jim, lives in Worcester, Massachusetts. He owns a downtown Worcester property that is zoned for commercial office space. However, since there is already plenty of office space available in Worcester, Jim does not feel that it would be wise to build another office building. Instead, he wishes to build a gas station to service the downtown traffic.
He asks you to do a bit of research on Massachusetts law to determine:
a) what standard your client must show to get a variance to allow him to build the gas station; and
b) if you can find any case law on the basis of which to guess whether he will be successful.
Please do so.
There is NO need to write an IRAC-style essay for this assignment.
Here is the paper…
The issue at hand is about the standards Jim must show so as to be able to get a variance to enable him to build the gas station.
If Jim is to be granted the permission to convert the space in his commercial building into a gas station, there are four major tests he must meet before the Board can grant him the variance. If he does not prove them to their satisfaction, it means that the Board will not have the legal authority to grant Jim a variance. The first rule is that Jim must show that the land in question cannot produce a reasonable return unless the variance is given. In this test, the Board will be looking for a proof that without the variance Jim cannot make reasonable use of the property as a commercial office building. It is crucial to note that a reasonable return under the law does not necessary mean maximum return in terms of finances (Cordell, 2014). Second, the law requires that a variance is granted owing to the unique situation of the property as well as not to the general condition of the neighborhood. Under this regulation, the Board looks for proof that the property is somehow different from any other property in the neighborhood (Cordell, 2014). The difference could encompass its topography, shape, or even its unique position. Third is the granting if the variance does not change the essential character of where the property is localized. To meet this requirement, a person must be in a position to prove to the Board that the proposal will not alter the neighborhood. It is also required that the individual proves that the variance will not pose safety or health problems (Cordell, 2014). This is considered the easiest step a person can meet. Last, the hardship for which one seeks to obtain variance is not the result of an action taken by the prior owner of the property or the applicant. In this rule, the past history of a property is critically relevant. A good example would be where a property owner decides to split a lot out of larger parcel and doing this made a substantial lot after zoning was granted (Cordell, 2014). As such, an individual will need to present to the Board, a clear history of how the property was made as well as developed over the course of years.
So as to determine the standards Jim must show in order to get a variance to enable him build the gas station the board would rely on two so that to develop relevant decision: B.J.’S Wholesale Inc. V. Hutchings and Shacka v. Board of Appeals, 341 Mass. 593. In the B.J.’S Wholesale Inc. V. Hutchings case the plaintiff, B.J.’S Wholesale Inc. seeks judicial review of a decision for a denial of a request for a permit to construct as well as operate a gasoline station in a parking lot of the company’s whole club store adjustment to Route 1 in Attleboro. The court rejected the request for the permit stating some shortcoming it realized with the B.J.’S Wholesale Inc. application (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court BRISTOL, 2000). The first one was that the Board made a conclusion that the gas station to be constructed would result in undue traffic congestion as well as hinder pedestrian safety as three areas. the court reasoned that the gas station would add more problems to the already existing ones in terms of traffic. The Board also based its argument on the decision that the gasoline station would exacerbate the current issues facing this location impairing the pedestrian’s safety and make a bad situation worse. The second shortcoming is that, as identified by the Board, the gas station would have a serious undesirable impact on the public and neighborhood (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court BRISTOL, 2000). The Board held that the people already had enough problems to deal with, the gas station will only add to this because it would result in a lot of noises, the unreasonable level of traffic, and glares from the parking lights.
In the case of Shacka v. Board of Appeals, 341 Mass. 593, appellant had purchased a property at Gorham Street, Chelmsford next to a highway as a location for a service station. This is after the intervener was evicted from the current position due to public construction activities (Wilkins, Spalding & Cutter, 2000). The new site was flat and could be used for almost anything. However, the Board ruled against the appellant on the grounds that there was not substantial hardship was experienced by the applicant. the hardship was caused by taking the previous space and was found unnecessary because it did not affect the zoning district in which it was positioned (Wilkins, Spalding & Cutter, 2000). From this, it can be argued that Jim does not have a good basis of getting the variance. This is because it can be seen that he does not meet that hardship requirement. Second, his case is similar that of Shacka v. Board of Appeals in that he is only interested in getting the variance so that he can meet his financial needs. In the same way, getting the variance does not benefit the public in any way. Therefore, the Board is most likely to deny granting Jim the variance.
The issue at hand concerns the standard that Jim must meet so that he can granted a variance to zoning his commercial office building into a gas station. With respect to the analysis and rules, it can be seen that Jim does not meet most of the requirement stipulated in the rule and. Therefore, the Board will not grant him the variance.
This is how the Irac needs to be written…THE I-R-A-C STRUCTURE IN WRITING
The IRAC method is a framework for organizing your answer to a business law essay question. The basic structure is: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Using this simple framework for structuring your answer will ensure that you have written a complete answer.
Issue Begin your answer by stating the issue presented by the essay question. Sometimes the question will provide the issue for you. If not, then ask: What is the legal question that, when answered, determines the result of the case? The issue should be stated in the form of a question in a specific, rather than general form: “Is there an agency relationship if there was no compensation paid?” would be an acceptable issue. “Will the plaintiff win?” would not be acceptable. Note that the issue may be case specific, mentioning the parties’ names and specific facts of the case. Example: “Did Jones have an agency relationship with XYZ Corp. due to his acting on behalf of XYZ and following its instructions?” The issue can encompass all cases which present a similar question. Example: “Is an agency created whenever there is an employment relationship?” Most cases present one issue. If there is more than one issue to address, then you must write a separate IRAC analysis for each issue.
Rule The rule describes which law or test applies to the issue. The rule should be stated as a general principal, and not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed. Example: “An agency relationship is created when there is an agreement that the agent will act for the benefit of the principal at the principal’s direction or control regardless of whether compensation is paid” would be an acceptable rule. “The plaintiff was the defendant’s agent” would not be an acceptable rule. Do not use parties’ names or specific facts from the case. Hint: Frequently, the rule will be the definition of the principle of law applicable in the case. Example: An agent may not use or disclose confidential information acquired through the agency absent an agreement to the contrary.
Analysis The analysis is the most important, and the longest, part of your answer. It involves applying the Rule to the facts of the problem or question. You should use the facts to explain how the rule leads to the conclusion. Discuss both sides of the case when possible. Important: Do not merely state a conclusion without also stating reasons for it. A conclusion without reasons or explanation means that you have not used the rule and the facts to analyze the issue. Hint: The rule can be used as a guide in your discussion. Example: Suppose the issue is whether A is an independent contractor. Using the facts of the case, explain whether or not they fit into the definition of what is an independent contractor: “In this case, A was told by the foreman what to wear, how to operate the machine, and when to report to work each day, giving her little control over the job.” If the rule is a test with multiple factors, then you must analyze each factor by pointing out how the facts do (or do not) fulfill each factor.
Conclusion The conclusion is your answer to the Issue. State the result of your analysis. Examples: “Smith is liable for negligence” or “Therefore, no valid contract was formed between X and Y.” If there are multiple issues, there must be multiple conclusions as well.