11/22/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

May 18 04 09: 07p P. 41. Although the existing hells servicing lot 29 and 31 are situated.near Deerfield Road and approximately five feet from the nearest boundary line to locus,the proposed septic system on locus would be about one hundred feet from both wells (exhibit 31B). The initial issue to be addressed is whether any plaintiff has the requisite standing to prosecute the appeal brought under Count I. The law is well-settled that"[a]court has jurisdiction to consider a zoning appeal only if it has been brought by a person with `standing,' that is,by a person who has been `aggrieved' by a board's decision" Watros v, Greater Lunn Mental Health & Retardation Ass'n, Inc.,421 Mass. 106, 107(1995). "Persons entitled under G. L. c. 40A, § 11, to notice,of zoning board of appeals hearings are given the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that they are `persons aggrieved' for purposes of G. L. c. 40A, § 17.". Dennen v.Zonine Bd. of L12peals of Seekonk. 59 Mass.App. Ct. 209,212(2003).-The first paragraph of G.L.c.40A-§ 11,defines"parties in interest"entitled to such notice as"the petitioner,abutters,owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way,and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of thepetitioner"and planning boards in the particular city or town and in abutting municipalities: Accordingly, Larson and Mitchell, as owners of lots abutting rwo sides of locus, are parties in interest." As an individual and as owner of lot 27,Shaw is not one of the plaintiffs brining ''-As one of the owners of lot 36 lying directly across Deerfield Road from locus,Gustas falls within the definition of a party`in interest. At the end of trial, this court inquired as to the status of Gustas in the case at bar. Counsel for plaintiffs stated that Gustas was"initially involved in this case"and equated the status of Gustas to that of Carter, a nonparticipant in the proceedings. See Trial Transcript at 205 and 206. Plaintiffs'Trial Brief contains not a single reference to Gustas but addresses the standing of Larson and Mitchell. A footnote to Ellis' posttrial brief asserts"Plaintiffs' counsel represented at trial that Plaintiff Paul Gustas was not pursuing his 10