Aiello v. Planning Board of Braintree
AC 15-P-1321
| Mass. App. Ct. | Apr 14, 2017Background
- Aiello, owner of residential property directly north and at higher elevation than a 9-acre commercial locus in Braintree, alleged visual, noise, and odor impacts from commercial activities on the locus.
- Locus owner (RMT/McCourt) occupied site; a 1994 special permit allowed a 3,750 sq ft addition limited to enclosed storage and prohibited permanent outdoor storage; condition also required minimizing noise impacts to abutters.
- McCourt began operating a contractor's yard (vehicle/equipment storage and repairs) and in 2008 applied to modify the 1994 permit to allow active repairs in the addition and limited exterior storage/oversized parking within the buffer zone.
- The Planning Board approved the 2009 modification, replacing several 1994 conditions with new, more permissive conditions and requiring an 8-foot opaque fence and some plantings; Aiello appealed to Land Court.
- The Land Court judge found Aiello lacked standing (focusing on incremental harm vs. preexisting uses) but on the merits concluded the board’s screening measures were inadequate and would remand for reconsideration if Aiello had standing.
- On appeal, the Appeals Court held the Land Court erred in finding no standing and remanded for the board to reconsider the modification in light of inadequate screening and other issues (fire lane placement, etc.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal zoning board's modification | Aiello: buffer by-law protects visual and noise interests; board removal of 1994 conditions injures him (loss of mandated screen; increased noise/visual intrusion). | McCourt/board: abutter cannot show more than de minimis incremental harm because similar uses were previously allowed; rebut presumption of standing. | Court: Aiello has standing; focus on board action and loss of by-law-protected mitigation (visual/noise), not only incremental change. |
| Adequacy of screening under buffer by-law | Aiello: required vegetative buffer cannot be met by the fence; screening inadequate given elevation and visibility. | McCourt/board: fence and limited plantings plus fencing provide adequate screening; uses are by-right in commercial district. | Court: Land Court correctly found screening inadequate; board must reconsider permit given by-law requirements. |
| Authority over fire lane location | Aiello: fire chief mandated fire lane adjacent to building; board cannot override fire chief. | Board: approved site plan placing fire lane differently (based on chairman’s private conversation downplaying fire chief’s requirement). | Court: fire chief controls fire lane; board lacked authority to approve conflicting layout; board must reconsider and solicit current fire chief input. |
| Alleged board/member bias or improper considerations | Aiello: member had MBTA payment control over McCourt and town settlement may have influenced board; these create bias/improper considerations. | Board/McCourt: member no longer had MBTA role at vote; settlement not discussed or determinative. | Court: no evidence of bias sufficient to overturn; judge's credibility findings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 762 (1996) (standing to challenge zoning decision need not be limited to incremental harm beyond original approval)
- Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 (2011) (standing requires particularized harm and context-specific analysis of aggrievement)
- 81 Spooner Rd., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692 (2012) (zoning interests protected by bylaw; defendant may rebut abutter standing with credible contrary evidence)
- Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (2009) (crowding/density impacts can confer standing for abutters)
- Picard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westminster, 474 Mass. 570 (2016) (plaintiffs must show credible evidence of actual injury from proposed changes)
- Martin v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 Mass. 141 (2001) (abutter had standing where proposed structure would be visibly intrusive)