Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2010 i Volume 4 I No. 21 that: it was "not clear ... that a property owner's property rights [were] necessarily protected" under the county's appellate proce- dures.) The importance of the court's' decision was in its holding that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in using one's property as he or she wishes. Standing— Abutters Challenge Zoning Actions, Saying Actions Led to Traffic Causing them injury Developers argue abutters lack standing because zoning actions did not cause alleged injury Citation: Petricca Development, LLC v. Lanesborough Enterprises Newcci LLC, 2010 WL 3748082 (Mass. Land Ct. 2010), judgment en- tered, 2010 WL 3730912 (Mass. Land 0. 2010) MASSACHUSETTS (09/24/10) —This case addressed whether a party challenging zoning actions had standing (i.e., the legal right) to bring certain legal actions. More specifically, the action addressed whether the injuries alleged by the challenger were "directly related" to the zoning actions challenged —thus giving the challenger standing to bring its legal actions. The Background/Facts: In early 2005, the owners of Berkshire Mall (the "Mall "), Lanesborough Enterprises Newco, LLC ( "LEN "), sought to demolish a large store and replace it with a larger retail space to be occu- pied by Target. They applied to the town's planning board (the "Board ") for a special permit to expand the Mall and construct the Target store. Target had a company policy requiring it to be the owner of the land and building in which it operates. For the sole purpose of being able to grant Target ownership of the land upon which the store was built, LEN applied to the Board for subdivision approval. LEN also sought certain variances to satisfy the requirements for subdivision approval and com- pliance with zoning regulations regarding set -back and sideline require- ments which would come into play if the land was conveyed to Target. The Board granted the special permit, the subdivision approval, and the requested variances. Abutting property owners (the "Ab>itters ") eventually challenged the Board's subdivision approval and grant of variances. These claims were brought under two separate actions. LEN filed a joint motion for joint summary judgment. It asked the court to dismiss the Abutters' actions due to the Abutters' lack of standing (i.e., legal right to bring a court action). LEN maintained that © 2010 Thomson Reuters 7 31