Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

6 July 25 2016 1 Volume 10 Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin property values would be diminished by the proposed development and thus whether the Neighbors had standing. The court explained that, in order to have standing to challenge the is- suance of the Planning Board's decisions here, the Neighbors must be "person[s] aggrieved" by the decisions. (G.L. c. 40A, § 17.) The court acknowledged that the Neighbors were abutters to the subject property and thus,under G.L. c. 40A, § 17,were entitled to a rebuttable presump- tion that they were"aggrieved."However,under Massachusetts law,even Presumptive standing can be rebutted if the plaintiff(i.e.,the party bring- ing in the legal action;here,Neighbors)cannot show aggrievement. The court explained that, "in the zoning context," CSH, as the defendant, could rebut the abutters' presumption of standing at summary judgment including by coming forward with credible evidence that refuted the presumption. Here, the court found that CSH had successfully done that—through evidence provided by five expert witnesses. Its expert wit- nesses had provided evidence that the proposed development would not have detrimental effects on the character of the neighborhood or property values.Thus,although the Neighbors had enjoyed a presumption of stand- ing as abutters, CSH had successfully rebutted that presumption. Since CSH had successful rebutted the Neighbors' presumption of standing,the court explained that the burden of proof then shifted back to the Neighbors to present evidence that would establish that they would suffer some direct injury to a private right, private property interest, or private legal interest as a result of the Planning Board's decision on CSH's property. The court found that the Neighbors' claims based on detriment to the character of the neighborhood could not serve as the basis of stand- ing because they were not special and different from the harms of the rest of the community. The court found that the Neighbors failed to allege ag- grievement to their own properties with any particularity, and that therefore the neighborhood character concerns were insufficient to confer standing on the Neighbors. The court also found, however, that the Neighbors did present suf- ficient evidence—through two expert witnesses—to support their allega- tions that the development would diminish their property values. Thus, the court found that CSH and the Neighbors' competing evidence as to diminution of property values due to the proposed development created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Neighbors had standing. Therefore, the court concluded that summary judgment would be inap- propriate here on those grounds. See also:81 Spooner Road,LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals ofBrooldine, 461 Mass. 692, 964 N.E.2d 318 (2012). See also:Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 944 N.E.2d 163 (2011). 4 ©2016 Thomson Reuters