Buccaneer Development, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Lenox
87 Mass. App. Ct. 871
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Buccaneer Development applied for a special permit (Dec 2007) to build a 55+ retirement community: 23 single-family townhouses on 23 acres in Lenox (R1A zone), adjacent to 68 acres of protected open space and surrounded by lower-density residential uses.
- The Lenox Zoning Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to deny the special permit, citing undue density, harm to the neighborhood’s small‑town character, lack of public benefit, and traffic concerns; the decision was filed Dec 28, 2007.
- Buccaneer sued under G. L. c. 40A, § 17; initial Housing Court judgment (2010) affirmed the board; Appeals Court vacated for jurisdictional reasons (Buccaneer I) and remanded for Land Court permit‑session adjudication under the by‑law as of Dec 2007.
- On remand the same judge, designated to sit in the Land Court permit session, adopted her prior findings and again affirmed the board’s denial (final judgment Apr 8, 2014, later modified to correct respondent and filing date).
- Trial findings: project met the objective numeric requirements of § 9.6 (density, setbacks, lot size), and the judge found no significant sewer or traffic impact; nonetheless the judge concluded the project would substantially change the immediate area’s appearance and reach a "tipping point" harming the neighborhood character.
- Majority affirmed: board acted within discretionary authority under § 6.1.1 (subjective criteria). A dissent argued the board’s reasons were conclusory, unsupported, and therefore arbitrary; dissent also criticized procedural aspects of the remand and cross‑designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buccaneer met by‑law objective numeric requirements for a retirement community under § 9.6 | Project satisfied all numeric/technical special‑permit criteria (density, acreage, setbacks) | Board acknowledged numeric criteria met but relied on discretion to deny | Held: Plaintiff met numeric criteria; board could not deny on square footage, acreage, frontage, or setback grounds |
| Whether board may nonetheless deny a special permit despite objective compliance | Denial was arbitrary because developer satisfied statutory and by‑law criteria | Board has discretionary authority to deny based on § 6.1.1 subjective factors (harmony, public welfare, neighborhood character) | Held: Board’s discretionary denial upheld—not arbitrary—because supported by trial judge’s factual findings |
| Whether objective public‑safety/facility criteria (traffic, sewer) justified denial | Evidence showed no significant sewer overload or traffic/pedestrian hazard | Board pointed to traffic concerns (one member) and general public welfare concerns | Held: Trial judge’s findings that traffic and sewer impacts were insignificant were not clearly erroneous; denial was not based on traffic/sewer |
| Whether board’s decision and trial review were sufficiently reasoned and supported by facts | Buccaneer: board’s decision was conclusory, lacked factual support, and thus legally untenable; trial judge should not have deferred | Board/majority: judge’s view and findings (including on the area’s "feel" and "tipping point") provided factual support; deference appropriate to board on subjective standards | Held: Majority upheld decision as grounded in judge’s factual findings (view of property, alteration to neighborhood character). Dissent disagreed, calling the board’s reasoning vague and arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Peabody, 465 Mass. 725 (discusses deference to trial judge on facts and to boards on ordinance interpretation)
- Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 349 (board retains discretion to deny special permit even if applicant satisfies criteria)
- Subaru of New England, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 483 (standards for disturbing board discretion; relief only if denial legally untenable or arbitrary)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Framingham, 355 Mass. 275 (same principle on limits to review of board discretion)
- Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Billerica, 454 Mass. 374 (decisions that merely recite standards without factual support are invalid)
- Shirley Wayside Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Appeals of Shirley, 461 Mass. 469 (board must apply its standards rationally; review of substantial basis in fact)
- Josephs v. Board of Appeals of Brookline, 362 Mass. 290 (local by‑laws must supply adequate standards guiding board discretion)
- MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 635 (examples of inadequate board findings requiring reversal)