Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

32 November 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin the Abutters had failed to show that they were "persons aggrieved" by the subdivision approval or grant of variances. The Abutters maintained that they were injured as a result of the zoning relief granted in the form of, the plan approval and vari- ance from the town's parking requirements. Among other things, they claimed injuries resulting from "traffic and safety concerns related to, and alleged exacerbated by, the `insufficient' parking allowed by the parking variance." DECISION: Motion allowed— summary judgment in favor of LEN. • The Massachusetts Land Court held that the Abutters did not have standing to bring their actions because they were not "persons ag- grieved. "'The injury claimed by the Abutters was not caused by the Board's grant of the plan approval or the variances. The court explained that in order to appeal a decision of the Board, Massachusetts statutory law (Mass. Gen. L. c. 41, § 81BB) required the Abutters be "persons aggrieved." "Persons aggrieved" were "those whose legal rights have been infringed upon by the board's action, which legal rights are of a type `intended to be given to the plaintiff by the statute permitting an appeal." In other words, the Abutters would have standing to bring their legal actions here if their claimed injuries were caused by the zoning actions they were appealing (i.e., the grant of the plan approval or the variance). Here, the court found that the Abutters could not make such a' showing. The Abutters had argued that because the Board allowed— through the subdivision approval and variances —the Target store to have fewer parking spaces than the by -laws required, the parking lot was operating inadequately, . causing traffic congestion, which injured the Abutters. The court disagreed. It found that expert testimony showed that the traffic was not caused by fewer parking spaces; rather, it was caused by more vehicles driving to the new Target store. The court found that the Abutters' claimed injuries resulting from traffic congestion were "not directly related to the Boards' variance granting relief from parking regulations or from the subdivision plan approval." Thus, the court concluded that the Abutters did not have standing to bring court actions challenging these zoning actions. Accordingly, the court dismissed both actions. See also: Circle Lounge & Grille v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949); accord Boston Edison Co. v. Bos- ton Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977). See also: Butler v. City of Waltham, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 827 N.E.2d 216 (2005). 8 - © 2010 Thomson Reuters