Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Salisbury
116 N.E.3d 1219
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Two abutting proposals sought special permits for digital billboards within 1,000 feet of each other in Salisbury; State OOA may approve only one such billboard but requires prior local zoning approval.
- Both applicants (Northvision and Clear Channel/Checkpoint Charlie) conceded they met the special-permit criteria under the local bylaw for purposes of litigation.
- The Salisbury Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant Northvision’s permit and deny Clear Channel’s; two board members (Henderson and Hunt) later admitted considering improper, non‑zoning factors (favoring the applicant who filed first) in voting.
- The board moved for entry of judgment against itself, admitting it had no proper basis to deny Clear Channel; the trial court entered judgment ordering the board to issue Clear Channel a permit.
- Clear Channel moved to rescind Northvision’s permit; that motion was denied, and at trial the court excluded evidence about the board members’ mental processes and prior denial of Clear Channel’s application.
- The Superior Court found Clear Channel lacked standing and rejected its claims on the merits; Clear Channel appealed and the Appeals Court vacated the Superior Court judgments and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — who is "person aggrieved" under G. L. c. 40A | Checkpoint Charlie (property owner) is an abutter and suffers impact to use/enjoyment; thus has standing | Clear Channel (corporate applicant) argued economic competition harms are protected; trial court found no standing for Clear Channel | Checkpoint Charlie has standing as abutting owner; corporate economic-competition harms do not confer standing |
| Admissibility of board members' mental processes | Permit challenger needs to probe reasons/votes to show decision was arbitrary; board admissions make mental processes directly relevant | Northvision: inquiry into mental processes is disfavored except in extraordinary bad-faith cases | Trial judge abused discretion in excluding evidence of board members’ reasons given board’s admission of legally irrelevant considerations |
| Effect of board’s motion for entry of judgment against itself | Clear Channel argued board’s admission tainted both decisions and Northvision’s permit should be rescinded | Board and Northvision opposed; trial judge allowed the board’s self-judgment, later used to limit evidence | Court warns judges to consider collateral consequences before allowing a nonmoving party’s motion; here both board decisions must be set aside and proceedings re-done |
| Whether extraneous considerations are irrelevant if special-permit criteria met | Clear Channel: even if objective criteria met, extraneous factors may have infected discretionary grant | Northvision: meeting criteria makes extraneous considerations irrelevant because permit could lawfully be granted | Court: special permits have discretionary and objective components; extraneous factors can infect discretionary decision and are relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- 81 Spooner Rd., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692 (2012) (abutter presumption of standing)
- New England Med. Center, Inc. v. Rate Setting Comm’n, 384 Mass. 46 (1981) (mental-process inquiry into administrators limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Dowd v. Board of Appeals of Dover, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 148 (1977) (administrative action injecting criteria not in enabling act is legally untenable)
- N.E. Physical Therapy Plus, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 466 Mass. 358 (2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Buccaneer Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lenox, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 871 (2015) (special permits contain discretionary and objective components)