Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 12 Standing —Abutting Property Owners Challenge Grant of Variance to Neighbor Neighbor maintains abutters' alleged injury to view is insufficient for abutters to establish standing Citation: Marhefka v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Sutton, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 515, 2011 WL 1796528 (2011) MASSACHUSETTS (05/13/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether abutting property owners' alleged injury to their view from their neighbors proposed project was sufficient to give them stand- ing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge the grant of a variance for the project to their neighbors. The Background/Facts: Rosanne LaBarre and Jon Scott (col- lectively, the "Scotts") owned a home in the Town of Sutton (the "Town"). Their property had frontage on a pond and was within an R-1 zoning district. The Town's bylaw provided certain dimen- sional and density provisions for lots in the R-1 zoning district. The Scotts sought to build a two -car garage, with attic space above, on a building footprint 24 feet by 24 feet. The Scott's existing use, while historically consistent with the cottage -campsite character of sev- eral surrounding properties, was nonconforming as to density and di- mensions under the bylaw. The addition of the garage would increase the existing density and dimensional nonconformity. It would also partially obscure the view of the pond from the home of the abutting property owners —Robert and Linda Marhefka (the "Marhefkas"). In furtherance of their proposed garage, the Scotts applied to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") for a necessary vari- ance from the density and dimensional requirements of the bylaw. The Board granted the Scotts' requested variance. The Marhefkas appealed the grant of the variance to Land Court. The Scotts argued that the Marhefkas' action failed because the Marhefkas lacked standing (i.e., legal right) to bring the action. The Scotts argued that the Marhefkas had not alleged violation of an inter- est protected by the Town's bylaw, which was required for standing. The Land Court judge agreed with the Scotts. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the judge issued summary judgment in favor of the Scotts. The judge determined that the Marhefkas' claims of loss of view and resulting diminution of property value were not protected © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9