Marhefka v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Sutton
79 Mass. App. Ct. 515
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- A Land Court judge granted summary judgment ruling that Marhefkas lacked standing to challenge a variance granted to LaBarre and Scott under G. L. c. 40A, § 17.
- Plaintiffs claimed loss of view of Ramshorn Pond due to the proposed garage, arguing a protected interest under the zoning by-law; the judge rejected standing on the basis that view is not protected.
- Defendants’ lot is 5,937 square feet in an R-1 district, far below minimums for size and frontage, with existing nonconformities in density and setbacks; a variance was granted for a 6.6-foot-frontage garage.
- The by-law regulates density and dimensions and defines open space and yard to preserve aesthetic value and provide a visual buffer between lots.
- On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the plaintiffs asserted a competent basis for standing and that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings to determine the extent of the injury with credible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the by-law grant standing to challenge a variance based on a loss of view? | Marhefkas allege protected interest in view due to density/dimensional violations. | LaBarre & Scott argue view is not a protected by-law interest; no standing. | Yes; plaintiffs have standing as to protected density/dimensional interests. |
| Is view protected as an interest under the by-law's density provisions? | By-law protects open space and a visual buffer; view impairment is a by-law interest. | View itself is not expressly protected; impact is insufficient absent explicit protection. | Protected interest exists implicitly via open space/yard provisions and buffer purpose. |
| Do density/dimensional provisions confer standing when a nonconforming lot is further encroached? | Increased density on an already nonconforming lot injures protected interests and supports standing. | Standing requires concrete statutory injury; no injury shown. | Yes; density/dimensional nonconformity can confer standing to challenge a variance. |
| Is summary judgment proper given disputed extent of injury to view? | Evidence supports substantial loss of protected open space; material facts exist. | Injury degree disputed; no clear credibility; summary judgment appropriate. | No; genuine issues of material fact exist; remand for credibility-based determination. |
| What is the appropriate disposition on appeal given standing and factual disputes? | Judge erred in not recognizing standing and need for evidence-based injury assessment. | Judge properly resolved standing; appeal should affirm. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491 (1989) (defines 'person aggrieved' standard and standing analysis)
- Dwyer v. Gallo, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 292 (2008) (abutter's interest in density provisions supports standing)
- Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (2009) (implied protection of visual/buffer considerations)
- Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 55 (1992) (standing where further construction interferes with water view)
- Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1996) (requirement of credible evidence for standing)
- Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 (2011) (standing where asserted development violates by-law density/dimensional constraints)
- Sheehan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 52 (2005) (limits on standing for mere impairment of water view)
- Butler v. Waltham, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 435 (2005) (quantum of credible evidence for standing)
- Albahari v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brewster, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 245 (2010) (appellate review standard for standing on cross motions)