11/22/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

Mag 19 04 09:08p P. 12 this appeal.13 Shaw, however, is a party plaintiff"as she is [t]rustee of the Deerfield Acres Trust." i t - As found above, one of the parcels owned by the Deerfield Acres Trust is lot 40,which constitutes the westerly boundary line of locus. In her fiduciary capacity,Shaw also is a party in interest. Much of the evidence and the parties' posttrial memoranda focuses on whether the value of the properties owned by Larson and Mitchell would be affected by the development of locus. Based upon the testimony ofAittaniemi,plaintiffs contend that homes on lots 29 and 31 would decline in value if a home were situated on locus in close proximity to the abutting residences. Ellis relies upon the testimony of two real estate agents to claim that the construction of a new home on locus would increase'the values of the homes of Larson and Mitchell. Without deciding which party has offered more convincing evidence on value, this court determines that Larson, Mitchell,and Shaw have standing to bring this appeal on other grounds. Both Larson and Mitchell testified that they were concerned that theywould suffer from the intrusion of light and noise, as well as a loss of privacy, if a house-were constructed on locus in such cl-ose proximity to their existing homes. Furthermore,both abutters claimed they feared that the development on locus would have a detrimental effect on their septic systems and on-site wells. As to these additional concerns bf Larson and Mitchell,Ellis has failed to offer any evidence to rebut the presumption of standing enjoyed by the abutters. See Denneny,59 Mass. App. Ct. at 212;Valcourt v Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Swansea,48 Mass.App.Ct. 124, 127T128 (1999). claims in this matter." Plaintiffs have not sou?ht to contradict Ellis' assertion. Based upon these a facts,this court infers that Gustas.has no interest in prosecuting this appeal. None of the parties treat Gustas as a bona fide plaintiff, and.nor shall this court. 13Even if she joined the appeal in her individual capacity, Shaw is,not an abutter to either Larson or Mitchell. Consequently,Shaw would not have the benefit of a presumption of standing under Count I of the amended-complaint. i H.