Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/05/2009

Home

n n ~;\>~ Zoning Bulletin July 25, 20091 Vo'um~ 31 No. 14 Framingham nor any of its municipal boards had standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge the granting of the permit. Framingham maintained that it did have standing because it was "aggrieved" in that, among oth- er things: (1) the issuance of the permit would increase traffic on Ftam- i,ngham streets; and (2) Chrysler's proposed development would have an impact on its municipal emergency services. . Chrysler and the ZBA fiied a joint motion to dismiss. They asked the court to dismiss the action based on Frainingham's lack of standing. DECISION: Order allowing. defendants' motion to dismiss. The Massachusetts Land Court held that Framingham lacked stand- ing to challenge the Natick ZBA's decision to grant a comprehensive per- mit to Chrysler. . The court noted that because Frall1ingham was not an . abutter to the Property on which development was proposed, it did not have 'a "pre- sumption' of standing." The court explained that Framingham would thus only have standing to appeal the ZBA's decision.if it qualified as a "person aggrieved." However, the court said that: "the Legislature did not intend to give municipal boards and officers standing to appeal'from the grant of comprehensive permits;" and a town col,lld not get around "the fu.nitations on standing by appealing in its own name when a mu- nicipal board or official [wa]s precluded from doing so." Further, a town was not a "person" and thus could not qualify as a "person aggrieved." Nevertheless, Framingham had argued that it did have standing be- cause its injury (i.e., increased traffic on its streets and impact on its emergency services) was a private injury,' as opposed to a general,; pub- lic injury. The land court disagreed. It said that in order to have stand- ing under Mass. Gen. 1. c. 40B, F~amingham had to demonstrate that: (1) Chrysler's development would injure Framingham's personal legal interests; and (2) any injured interest was one that c. 40B intended to protect. Here, the court found that the alleged injury-increased traffic~ Was not personal to Framingham; it was not "special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community." Traffic related,to Chrysler's development would travel over public streets of Framingham, Natick and the Commonwealth. Mqreover, traffic was not a harm that G.L. c. .40B was intended to protect, said the court. Rather, "[w]hen weighed' against the possibility of injury to private rights, the legislature's intent in enacting G.L. c. 40B, to encourage the construction of affordable hous- ing, ttump[ed] any harm or injury caused to Framingham by increased traffic." Furthe~ as to Framingham's claim of a "serious impact on its delivery of emergency services," that issue had been considered by the ZBA and conditions of the permit mitigated any injury to Framingham as Chrysler was required to contribute funds to Natick for a construc- tion of a new fire station. . @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 55