986 N.E.2d 417
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Hollister’s Kingston store has three front doors framed as one entrance with a central porch and two side doors.
- The porch door is raised and not accessible; the two side doors were at ground level, with one later modified to be accessible.
- In 2008 a complaint alleged Kingston store entrance was not accessible; Hollister sought a variance from accessibility requirements.
- Board found the three doors constitute separate entrances and required full accessibility for each; Hollister challenged the decision.
- After remand, Hollister altered an exit door to create a second accessible door; board reaffirmed multiple entrances and feasibility of modification.
- Superior Court upheld the board’s decision; Hollister appealed to the appellate court seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the three doors separate entrances under the regs? | Hollister: they are one entrance; accessible door suffices. | Board: each door is a separate entrance requiring full accessibility. | Yes; board properly treated them as separate entrances. |
| Is the board’s interpretation of 'entrance' within its authority and consistent with statute? | Hollister: board exceeded authority via hypertechnical construction. | Board: broad statutory/regulatory mandate supports interpretation. | Board acted within its authority and consistent with remedial purpose. |
| Was the board required to grant Hollister a variance given the evidence? | Hollister: cost/feasibility favor a variance. | Board: substantial benefit shown; cost analysis not dispositive. | Board's denial of variance supported by substantial benefit finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Architectural Barriers Bd., 14 Mass. App. Ct. 584 (1982) (agency broad discretion in statutory interpretation; deference due)
- Pyramid Co. of Hadley v. Architectural Barriers Bd., 403 Mass. 126 (1988) (regulatory deference; design vs use considerations)
- Iodice v. Architectural Access Bd., 424 Mass. 370 (1997) (remedial purpose; access standards as policy)
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (2013) (legislative history informing statutory interpretation)
- Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 459 Mass. 319 (2011) (interpretation of agency regulations; rational relation to goals)
- Lindsay v. Department of Social Services, 439 Mass. 789 (2003) (broad discretion in implementing reform; standard of review)
- Levy v. Board of Registration & Discipline in Medicine, 378 Mass. 519 (1979) (broad discretion and deference to agency actions)