81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692

Foggs (George and Frances) are abutters to 81 Spooner Road; 81 was divided into 81 and 71 Spooner Road after a subdivision plan approved in 2005.
Developer obtained a building permit for 71 Spooner Road; Foggs challenged the permit as aggrievement under G. L. c. 40A, § 17, before the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals (board).
Board rescinded the permit after determining that space on the second floor of 71 Spooner Road would be included in floor-to-area calculations, potentially exceeding bylaw limits.
Foggs alleged infectious invalidity and aggrievement due to density and impact on their properties; Land Court granted summary judgment in Foggs’ favor on standing, eliminating standing from merits trial.
Developer appealed; Appeals Court affirmed standing and merits; Supreme Judicial Court granted review and affirmed the standing ruling.
Key legal issue focuses on whether abutters have a rebuttable presumption of standing and what evidence is needed to rebut that presumption in summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge building permit	Foggs: abutters presumptively aggrieved; density and harm support aggrievement.	Fogg: presumption rebutted by lack of cognizable harm evidence	Foggs have standing; presumption not rebutted

Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 (2011) (aggrievement scope and rebuttal standards)
Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 (2006) (summary judgment rebuttal standard and admissible evidence)
Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1996) (abutter aggrievement and presumption framework)
Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass’n, 421 Mass. 106 (1995) (presumption of standing and burden on challenger)
Marhefka v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Sutton, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 515 (2011) (de novo standing review on appeal; summary judgment context)