Laserfiche WebLink
April 25, 2011 Volume 5 No. 8 Zoning Bulletin <br />Standing —Property Owners Challenge Issuance <br />of Special Permit Allowing Neighbors to <br />Increase the Height of Their Home <br />They claim standing based on obstruction of their ocean <br />view and related diminution in their property value <br />Citation: Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. <br />115, 2011 WL 817428 (2011) <br />MASSCHUSETTS (03/11/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether abutting property owners had standing to challenge the is-. <br />suance of a special permit to their neighbors based on the allega- <br />tions of obstruction of ocean view and diminution in property value <br />based on obstruction of ocean view. <br />The Background/Facts: Louis and Ellen Hieb (the "Hiebs") <br />owned property (the "Hieb Property") abutting the Atlantic Ocean <br />in the Town of Chatham (the "Town"). In June"2006, the Town's <br />Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") granted a special permit to <br />the Hiebs. The special permit allowed the Hiebs to raze their ex- <br />isting house and construct in the same footprint a new house that <br />would be seven feet taller than their existing one. <br />Brian and Carol Kenner lived across the street from the Hiebs, <br />such that the Hieb Property was between the Kenners' property and <br />the Atlantic Ocean. The Kenners challenged to court the issuance of <br />the special permit to the Hiebs. <br />The Hiebs asked the court to dismiss the Kenners' action. The Hiebs <br />argued that the Kenners were not "aggrieved" parties within the mean- <br />ing of Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, § 17, and therefore did not have standing <br />to bring their action. Massachusetts General Laws c. 40A, § 17 pro- <br />vides that: "[a]ny person aggrieved by a decision of the [zoning] board <br />of appeals ... may appeal to the land court department ...." <br />The land court judge agreed with the Hiebs, and concluded that <br />the Kenners were not "persons aggrieved" and therefore did not <br />have standing to challenge the issuance of the permit to the Hiebs. <br />The Kenners appealed. They maintained that they had standing <br />because they were "aggrieved" given that, among other things: the <br />Hiebs' new house would obstruct the Kenners' view of the ocean; <br />and the obstructed ocean view would diminish the value of the <br />Kenners' property. <br />The Appeals Court agreed with the Kenners and reversed. <br />6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />