Laserfiche WebLink
0- <br /> May 19 04 09:08p p. 12 <br /> this appeal.is Shaw,however, is a party plaintiff."as she is [t]rustee of the Deerfield Acres Trust." <br /> As found above, one of the parcels owned by the Deerfield Acres Trust is lot 40, which constitutes <br /> the westerly boundary line of locus. In her fiduciary capacity,Shaw also is a party in interest_ <br /> Much of the evidence and the parties' posttrial memoranda focuses on whether the <br /> i <br /> I <br /> vahle of the properties owned by Larson and Mitchell would be affected by the development of locus. <br /> Based upon the testimonyofAittaniemi,plaintiffs contend that homeson lots 29 and3l would decline <br /> in value if a home were situated on locus in close proximity to the abutting residences. Ellis relies <br /> upon the testimony of two real estate agents to claim that the construction of a new home on locus <br /> would increase the values of the homes of Larson and Mitchell. Without deciding which party has <br /> offered more convincing evidence on value, this court detennines that Larson, Mitchell, and Shaw <br /> have standing to bring this appeal on other grounds. <br /> Both Larson and Mitchell testified that they were concerned thatithey would suffer from <br /> the intrusion-of light and noise,as well as a loss of privacy, if a house were constructed on locus in <br /> such close proximity to their existing homes. Furthermore,both abutters claimed they feared that the <br /> development on locus would have a detrimental effect on their septic systems and on-site wells. <br /> As to these additional concerns bf Larson and Mitchell, Ellis has failed to offer any <br /> evidence to rebut the presumption of standing enjoyed by the abutters. See Denneny,59 Mass. App. <br /> Ct. at 212; Valcourt v. Zoning Bd.of Appeals of Swansea, 48 Mass.App. Ct. 124, 127-128 (1999). <br /> claims in this matter." Plaintiffs have not sought to contradict Ellis' assertion. Based upon these <br /> facts,this court infers that Gustas.has no interest in prosecuting this appeal. None of the parties <br /> treat Gustas as a bona fide plaintiff, and.nor shall this court. <br /> "Even if she joined the appeal in her individual capacity,Shaw is not an abutter to either <br /> Larson or Mitchell. Consequently, Shaw would not have the benefit of a presumption of standing <br /> under Count I of the amended complaint. <br /> 1J <br />