Shirley Wayside Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Appeals of Shirley
461 Mass. 469
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Wayside owns a 20-acre mobile home park located in R3 and RR zones and a water protection zone.
- The park currently contains 65 functioning mobile homes; Wayside sought to add 14 more (23.8% increase) within the same lot.
- Shirley’s bylaw permits expansion of preexisting nonconforming uses under three conditions, including a 25% area cap, no substantial detriment, and staying within the original lot.
- The board denied the permit citing density concerns and potential neighborhood impact; Land Court vacated and ordered issuance; the Appeals Court reversed, emphasizing density as a basis to deny.
- The Supreme Judicial Court upheld Land Court, finding the expansion compliant with the bylaw as interpreted and that density and traffic effects were not substantially detrimental.
- The Court also held that setback issues could be interpreted under zoning bylaws rather than board of health rules, and declined retrospective enforcement of a stricter setback rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bylaw's density provisions apply to the entire park | Wayside: density rules govern whole park, not each unit | Board: density applies to individual units under single-family frontage/setback norms | Bylaw density applies to the entire park and is met. |
| Whether the expansion is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood | Expansion screened, compliant with health regs; no evidence of substantial detriment | Increased density and traffic could harm neighborhood | Expansion not substantially more detrimental; board acted arbitrarily in denying. |
| Whether setback considerations retroactively apply the zoning bylaw’s 30-foot setback | Retroactive application would be inequitable given reliance on health setbacks | Setback provisions should govern expansion | Decline to apply the stricter setback retroactively; equity so requires. |
| Whether traffic impact justifies denial | Traffic increase de minimis; no proof of significant impact | Any measurable increase could be significant to neighbors | Traffic impact deemed de minimis; does not justify denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Billerica, 454 Mass. 374 (Mass. 2009) (deferential/combined standard for zoning decisions; board’s interpretation given weight)
- Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. 555 (Mass. 1954) (deferential review; determine if board used proper criteria)
- Britton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 68 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (clarifies scope of judicial review in bylaw interpretation)
- Cox v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 422 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997) (limits on applying lot-size requirements to expansions within a park vs. new tract)
- Marblehead v. Gilbert, 334 Mass. 602 (Mass. 1956) (density/land-use considerations in bylaw interpretation)
- Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157 (Mass. 1977) (license vs. zoning; separation of licensing from zoning restrictions)
- Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 349 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (expansion of nonconforming use considered under bylaw criteria, with equitable considerations)