03/12/2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decision

Home Browse Search

6. There is adequate land area to provide sufficient parking and setbacks as may be required. Plaintiff argues that he has standing, and that there is no evidence to support the ZBA Decision.The Trustees argue that the ZBA Decision was supported by the evidence. They also argue that Plaintiff has no standing to challenge the ZBA Decision. I shall address each issue in turn. A. Standing. The Trustees argue that Plaintiff lacks standing. G.L. c.40A § 17 provides aggrieved parties a right to judicial review of a decision by the zoning board of appeals. It is presumed that an abutter is an "aggrieved party" for the purposes of G.L. c. 40A § 17, and that they thus have standing to challenge the decision of a zoning board of appeals. 81 Spooner Rd.,LLC v.Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Brookline,461 Mass. 692, 700 (2012). If the abutter has alleged a harm explicitly or implicitly protected by.the zoning laws,the opposing party can rebut the presumption of standing by providing evidence, such.as affidavits of experts, that the abutter's claims of aggrievement are unfounded or minimal. Id. at 700, 702. The presumption of standing is eliminated once the defendant offers evidence challenging the plaintiff's status as an aggrieved party. Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health &Retardation Assn Inc., 421 Mass. 106, 111 (1995). Plaintiff argues that he has presumed standing because he is an abutter to the Trustee Property, and that he has harms related to interference of light,privacy, air, view and diminution of property value, which will result from the increased size of the New House. Plaintiff has attached the Catanzaro Affidavit as to these alleged harms. Plaintiff is presumed to have standing under G.L. c: 40A § 17 due to his status as an abutter to the Trustee Property. The Trustees have produced the Luff Affidavit,the Vaccaro Affidavit,the Bunker Affidavit and the Clancy Affidavit,which all indicate that the New House will not have a detrimental effect on 5