The state’s foundational zoning law does not spell out who is a “person aggrieved,” with standing to sue over purported violations. Case law has consequently filled the gap.
Last month, this column discussed the procedural hurdles that abutters face when they challenge building permits allowing construction that conflicts with local zoning regulations. This month’s column discusses a substantive hurdle that abutters face in zoning litigation; namely, they must prove that they are “persons aggrieved” under the Zoning Act in order to have standing to appeal zoning decisions.
The Zoning Act does not specifically define the term “person aggrieved,” so Massachusetts courts have developed their own jurisprudence when deciding this threshold issue in zoning cases. Abutters cannot simply claim “aggrieved” status. They must produce evidence, often including expert testimony, that they will actually suffer from an adverse zoning decision. If the court does not find that the abutter is a “person aggrieved,” it will rule that the abutter lacks standing to maintain the appeal and the abutter will lose, no matter how questionable the zoning board’s decision might be.
Last month’s Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion in Murchison v. Sherborn Zoning Board of Appeals is the most recent example of the importance of being a “person aggrieved” for abutters who appeal zoning board decisions.
Robert Murchison, a real estate developer, and his wife Alison own a home on a 13-acre lakefront property in Sherborn. Merriann Panarella and David Erichsen own a 3-acre undeveloped lot across the street from the Murchisons. Their lot has sufficient street frontage and lot size for a single-family home under Sherborn’s zoning bylaw, but the lot has an irregular shape, raising questions about whether it has sufficient width under the bylaw. The bylaw provides a complicated method for calculating lot width, which even a geometry expert might find challenging.
Lot Width is Point of Contention
Panarella and Erichsen obtained a foundation permit for a single-family home on their lot in 2016. The Murchisons appealed to the Sherborn Zoning Board of Appeals, claiming that the foundation permit should not have been issued because the lot’s width was insufficient. The ZBA unanimously upheld the foundation permit. The Murchisons appealed to the Land Court.
The Land Court acknowledged that the Murchisons were presumed to be “persons aggrieved” with standing to appeal the ZBA decision, because they lived across the street from the 3-acre lot. Panarella and Erichsen challenged that rebuttable presumption, while maintaining that their lot’s width satisfied all zoning requirements.
During a four-day trial, the Murchisons argued that a new home on the 3-acre lot would cause neighborhood overcrowding, diminution of property value and stormwater runoff. The Land Court judge was unimpressed with those arguments. She found that the Murchisons’ concerns were “speculative, unsupported by evidence, de minimis, or not credible,” and, therefore, the Murchisons lacked standing to challenge the ZBA decision. The Land Court dismissed the Murchisons’ appeal, without considering the merits of their argument that the Panarella-Erichsen lot had insufficient width.
The Appeals Court reversed the Land Court’s decision. It ruled that the Murchisons’ claim that the Panarella-Erichsen project would cause overcrowding had sufficient weight to confer standing on the Murchisons. The Appeals Court determined that the Land Court’s ruling against Murchison was “clear error.”
What Must Be Proved
The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review of this case, and heard the parties’ oral arguments last March. Promptly after hearing the oral arguments, the SJC took the unusual step of ruling in favor of Panarella and Erichsen and dismissing the Murchisons’ case before issuing a written opinion. Last month, the SJC issued its written opinion explaining its March ruling.
Christopher R. Vaccaro
The SJC’s opinion states that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Murchisons, who reside on a 13-acre lot, would be aggrieved by a new home constructed on Panarella’s and Erichsen’s 3-acre lot. The SJC also affirmed the Land Court’s findings that the new home would not diminish the value of the Murchisons’ property, and that the Murchisons offered insufficient evidence to show that increased stormwater runoff conferred standing on them. The SJC found no error in the Land Court’s decision, and dismissed the Murchisons’ appeal.
The SJC’s opinion in Murchison is the latest of many appellate court decisions addressing the standing issue in zoning cases. The Murchison opinion offers a noteworthy development in this area: Abutters do not attain status as “persons aggrieved” simply by claiming that a nearby project will cause overcrowding in their neighborhoods. To prove that they have standing, abutters must present persuasive, non-speculative and credible evidence that they will suffer real losses if the project is built without complying with zoning regulations.
Christopher R. Vaccaro, Esq. is a partner at Dalton & Finegold L.L.P. in Andover. His email address is cvaccaro@dfllp.com.
