Kenner v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham
459 Mass. 115
| Mass. | 2011Background
- In June 2006, the ZBA of Chatham granted a special permit to the Hiebs to demolish, reconstruct, and expand their house at 25 Chatharbor Lane.
- The Kenners, abutting property owners at 18 Chatharbor Lane, challenged the permit in Land Court, arguing they were aggrieved with standing to seek judicial review.
- The trial judge assumed a presumption of aggrievement for abutters but required the Kenners to rebut with credible, particularized evidence of harm.
- The judge found the Hiebs’ seven-foot-height increase de minimis and concluded the Kenners lacked standing; judgment for the Hiebs.
- Appeals Court remanded, but the Supreme Judicial Court ultimately concluded the Kenners lacked standing, vacating and dismissing without reaching merits.
- Key contested issue: whether increased height and potential impact on views confer aggrievement under G. L. c. 40A § 17 against the ZBA’s permit decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing based on ocean-view obstruction | Kenners are aggrieved abutters seeking a view. | Hiebs rebutted presumption with evidence; impact de minimis. | Kenners lack standing; no credible de facto injury |
| Standing based on diminution in property value | Value diminution arises from loss of ocean view. | Diminution not protected by zoning absent cognizable interest; link to zoning purposes missing. | Not a basis for standing |
| Standing based on traffic concerns | Proposed wall would worsen traffic flow; hurt Kenners' rights. | Allegations speculative; no credible evidence of impact. | No standing |
| Presumption of aggrievement for abutters | Abutters are presumptively aggrieved; should not require proof beyond presumption. | Presumption can be rebutted by credible evidence; burden shifts to plaintiff. | Presumption rebutted; standing requires credible, particularized injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (Mass. 1996) (presumption of aggrievement for abutters; evidence required to rebut)
- Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427 (Mass. 1949) (aggrievement and standing principles in zoning)
- Harvard Sq. Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) (standing requires cognizable private rights or interests)
- Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 (Mass. 2006) (standing must show tangible injury tied to zoning interests)
- Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 Mass. 141 (Mass. 2001) (visual impact considerations may confer standing under specific bylaws)
- Denneny v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 208 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (aesthetic concerns may be outside protected interests)
- Monks v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 685 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) (bylaw-provided protection for views can confer standing)
- Marotta v. Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199 (Mass. 1957) (standing determined on all evidence with no presumption aiding plaintiff)