Picard v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Westminster, 474 Mass. 570

Background

Maurice Picard (personal representative of his wife’s estate) owns lots abutting a 32,500 sq. ft. parcel (the locus) identified on a neighborhood plan as the "beach area," and his deed grants a right to use the beach areas in common for access to Wyman Pond.
3333, Inc. owns the locus, which has 101.51 feet frontage and is below Westminster zoning minimum area and frontage; the owner plans to build a residence and testified he would not impair pond access and would relocate/improve the beach.
The Westminster building commissioner determined the locus was a grandfathered nonconforming lot under G. L. c. 40A, § 6; the zoning board of appeals upheld that determination after a public hearing.
Picard sued under G. L. c. 40A, § 17 to challenge the board’s decision, claiming the proposed construction would interfere with his easement-based access to the pond.
The Superior Court dismissed for lack of standing (no "person aggrieved"); the Appeals Court reversed on standing and on the merits, but the Supreme Judicial Court granted review limited to standing and affirmed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether asserted interference with a private easement confers standing as a "person aggrieved" under G. L. c. 40A, § 17	Picard: his deeded right to use the beach (easement) and actual use for pond access will be harmed by the proposed construction, so he is aggrieved	3333, Inc.: Picard's asserted injury concerns private easement rights and recreational access, not harms the Zoning Act is designed to protect; the defendant rebutted abutter presumption	Held: No. Injury to private easement access is not within the Zoning Act's scope here; Picard lacked standing because he failed to show a cognizable zoning interest or more-than-minimal harm
Whether abutter presumption of aggrievement applies uncontested	Picard: as an abutter he is presumed aggrieved	3333, Inc.: rebutted the presumption by showing the interest asserted is outside the Zoning Act’s concerns and by adducing evidence undermining claimed harm	Held: Presumption rebutted; Picard bore burden to prove standing and failed
Whether testimony of owner that construction would not impede access defeats plaintiff’s claim	Picard: claimed likely interference and potential conflicts	3333, Inc.: owner testified he would improve access and not interfere; no concrete plans showing interference	Held: Crediting owner’s testimony and lack of concrete evidence, court found Picard’s fears speculative and insufficient for standing
Whether plaintiff may pursue zoning challenge despite alternative common-law remedies for easement harm	Picard: sought zoning relief to prevent construction impacting access	3333, Inc.: zoning relief not appropriate for private easement-only harms; common-law remedies remain	Held: Zoning claim dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiff not foreclosed from common-law relief for easement injury

Key Cases Cited

Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (defines "person aggrieved" as one who suffers infringement of legal rights)
Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427 (explains zoning’s public-interest focus in regulating deleterious uses)
Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115 (aggrievement requires more than minimal or slightly appreciable harm)
81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692 (abutter presumption and how it may be rebutted)
Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20 (need to show injury is special and different from community concerns)
Commercial Wharf East Condominium Ass'n v. Waterfront Parking Corp., 407 Mass. 123 (explains that an easement is an interest in land granting use of another's land)
Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255 (discusses rebuttal of abutter presumption and evidentiary burdens)