Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 15 i MASSACHUSETTS (06/17/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a claimed injury to a private easement right was sufficient to confer standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge a zoning determina- tion made by a zoning board of appeals. The Background/Facts: Maurice Picard ("Picard") owned and oc- cupied a certain property on Laurie Lane in the Town of Westminster (the "Town"). The deed to Picard's property included"the right to use in common with others a certain area located on Laurie Lane and designated as beach area[ ] on [the Laurie Lane Plan]." The easement i= was intended to afford residents of the neighborhood passage to Wyman Pond. 3333, Inc. owned the parcel of land identified on the Laurie Lane Plan as the "beach area" (the "Locus"). Peter Normandin ("Norman- din"), the president of 3333, Inc., sought to build a resident on the Locus. Although the Locus did not meet the Town Zoning By-Law's j minimum buildable area and minimum frontage requirements, the Town's building commissioner determined that the Locus had grandfa- thered status as a nonconforming lot and granted Normandin a building permit. Picard challenged the grant of the building permit to Normandin. He argued that the Locus did not enjoy grandfathered status. The Town's zoning board of appeals rejected Picard's challenge and upheld the building commissioner's determination. Picard again appealed. The trial court found that Picard could not bring the challenge because he lacked standing. Under Massachusetts' Zoning Act (Mass. G.L. c. 40A) only a"person aggrieved" has stand- ing to challenge a decision of a zoning board of appeals. Picard claimed aggrievement as an abutter to the Locus property. Picard contended that the proposed construction would cause him "aggrievement" in that it would interfere with his use of the Locus for access to the pond. The trial court disagreed and found that Picard failed to show that the proposed construction on the Locus would cause him any injury within F the state Zoning Act. Picard appealed. The Appeals Court agreed with Picard that he had standing, and, on j Picard's challenge, concluded that the Locus did not enjoy grandfa- thered status under the Town's Zoning-By-Law. j 3333,Inc. appealed. DECISION:Reversed in part. I The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Picard's claimed injury to his private easement right was not sufficient to confer standing to challenge the Town zoning board of appeals' determination that the Locus enjoyed grandfathered status under the Town's Zoning- By-Law. f ©2016 Thomson Reuters 5 1= c I h r