Zoning

Massachusetts Homeowner Brings Action Against Neighbor to Enforce Zoning Law

Published on: August 21, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Massachusetts zoning laws regulate the manner and extent to which property can be used. An August 18, 2017 Massachusetts real estate case brought before the Land Court illustrates a land use dispute involving neighboring homeowners. One of the homeowners had requested that the town’s building commissioner take a zoning enforcement action against his neighbor, who operated a contracting business. When the building commissioner denied his request, the homeowner appealed to the local zoning board of appeals, which found that the neighbor’s activities did violate use regulations. The neighbor appealed the board’s decision to the Land Court.

The parties in the case lived in a Single Residence zoning district, where bylaws prohibited most commercial activities. Despite the bylaws, the neighbor and his crew regularly parked numerous commercial vehicles at his property, gathered for meetings outside, and effectively used his yard as a contractors’ storage yard. The homeowner who lived next door found these activities to be particularly disruptive, as did the rest of the neighborhood.

The Land Court found that many of the activities on the neighbor’s property were commercial in nature and prohibited under the bylaw. The neighbor, however, argued that his property had, as an accessory use, a home occupation. The local bylaw defined accessory use as that which is clearly subordinate and incidental to the principal building or use and, significantly, does not alter the character of the premises. A customary home occupation, using one or more rooms for an office or studio, is a permissible accessory use under the bylaw, as long as no more than two people are regularly employed, the residential appearance and character of the premises are preserved, advertising on the premises is limited, and no sales are regularly conducted unless incidental to the accessory use.

Neighbors Appeal Modification of Subdivision Plan in Massachusetts Land Use Case

Published on: August 7, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Massachusetts real estate disputes often arise when property owners feel that changes proposed by other landowners would adversely affect their property rights. In a July 26, 2017 case, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts considered whether a local planning board properly approved a modification of a 1947 subdivision plan that abandoned a portion of one road and replaced it with an easement.

The defendants in the case had sought the modification from the planning board in order to advance the commercial development of properties owned by the defendants along the subdivision road at issue. Upon the board’s approval to change the subdivision road to an easement, the defendants could then combine their lots and eliminate some of the zoning restrictions they faced.

The plaintiffs in the case were residential owners of lots that abutted the subdivision road from the north. They appealed the planning board’s decision to allow the defendants’ proposed modification, objecting to the changes. The Land Court ultimately affirmed the board’s approval, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any harm affecting their lots from the discontinuation of a portion of the road and change to an easement. The plaintiffs subsequently brought their appeal to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Property Owner Opposes Second Story Addition to Neighbor’s Beach House

Published on: June 26, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Land use and zoning laws regulate how people and businesses can use and build upon their property. Property owners are not completely restricted, however, and may seek approval from the local government of plans that do not conform with the laws. In a June 22, 2017 case, the Massachusetts Land Court determined whether a special permit was properly granted to the defendants by a zoning board. The defendants in the case sought to demolish a pre-existing, non-conforming dwelling and build a new house on their property. After the zoning board approved the plan, the plaintiff challenged the decision by filing an appeal.

In 2014, the plaintiff had sold the lot to the defendants, which was located next door and downhill from the plaintiff’s property. The defendants sought to raze the small one-story house on the lot and construct a much larger and taller two-story house. The plaintiff contended that the view from her property would be diminished and result in a loss of privacy, due to the second-story windows planned for the defendants’ new house. The plaintiff also presented witness testimony that the value of her property would decrease.

After finding that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the zoning board decision, the land court addressed the merits of the appeal. The bylaw at issue provided that non-conforming single-family residential structures, as here, may be altered if: (1) the alteration will not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure; or (2) the alteration will increase the non-conforming nature of the structure, but the zoning board determines that the alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and issues a special permit.

Massachusetts Court Rules Plaintiff Has No Standing to Challenge Developer’s Permit for Multi-Unit Dwelling

Published on: June 19, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Before someone can challenge the validity of a permit issued to another landowner, that person must have legal standing. In a June 12, 2017 case, the issue for the Massachusetts Land Court was whether a plaintiff who lived across from the defendant’s property had standing to appeal a special permit granted to the defendant by the local zoning board. The special permit allowed the defendant to construct a four-unit residential building in a zone where three-unit buildings are allowed as of right and where larger buildings require a special permit.

The defendant in the case was a real estate developer that purchased property located across the street from the plaintiff’s house. The defendant sought a special permit to tear down the existing single-family home on the property and replace it with a single structure containing four residential units. After the zoning board granted the permit, the plaintiff appealed, alleging that she would be negatively affected by traffic and fire vehicle access that will result from the proposed development.

In order to have standing to challenge the defendant’s zoning permit, the plaintiff must be “aggrieved” as defined by law. People entitled to notice of the permit are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are aggrieved. In the case, the plaintiff was an abutter to an abutter within 300 feet of the defendant’s property, and as a result, she was entitled to the presumption that she is aggrieved.

Massachusetts Court Reverses Zoning Board Decision Lacking the Required Findings for Special Permit Approval

Published on: June 12, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

If a zoning board decision affects other adjoining or nearby landowners, they may be able to appeal the ruling. The Massachusetts Land Court reviewed a case on June 7, 2017 in which the defendants had obtained approval from the local zoning board to tear down a lawfully nonconforming garage on their property and replace it with a larger, single-family home. The plaintiffs, who lived on a parcel of land abutting the defendants’ property, appealed the zoning board’s grant of a special permit and variances authorizing the plan.

After determining that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the appeal, the land court turned to the question of whether the special permit had been properly issued. The defendants in the case requested relief from the off-street parking requirements of a local ordinance, which required a 20-foot driveway to accompany parking facilities within the ground floor of a structure. Pursuant to local laws, the zoning board is authorized to waive this requirement by issuing a special permit, if the board finds that the reduction is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that the reduction promotes a public benefit.

After reviewing the zoning board’s written determination, the land court found that, despite the lack of an explicit finding that the defendants’ proposal was not inconsistent with public health and safety or that the reduction promotes a public benefit, the standard was implicitly applied when the zoning board considered traffic flow and safety and stated that it did not foresee the location and the size of the site as having a significant negative impact. The land court concluded that the board employed an evaluation that was functionally identical to that mandated by the ordinance regarding parking waivers.

Massachusetts Land Court Holds Property Owners Barred from Building on Their Merged Lots

Published on: June 5, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Before making changes to an existing building or constructing a new one, property owners may have to obtain approval from the local government. In a May 30, 2017 case, the Massachusetts Land Court reviewed a zoning board decision granting a variance to the defendants for the construction of a new house on their vacant lot. The plaintiffs appealed the variance, which would allow the defendants’ house to be 15 feet closer to the plaintiffs’ property than permitted by the setback.

The defendants in the case owned two lots that were conveyed to them by a single deed in 1986. The defendants had built a house on one of the lots, while the other lot remained undeveloped. The plaintiffs in the case resided in a house located next to the defendants’ vacant lot. The vacant lot was oddly configured, making improvement of the property difficult due to its unique shape and the presence of wetlands. The zoning board ultimately granted the variance, finding that these factors created a hardship to the defendants that justified relief in order for them to develop the property. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the proper requirements for issuing a variance were not met, and as a result of the variance, they would suffer from increased density, reduction in privacy, loss of view, decrease in property value, safety infringements, and instability to their property.

The primary issue for the land court was whether the two lots owned by the defendants had merged for the purposes of zoning, which would result in the loss of grandfathered status and subject the property to the contiguous upland requirement in order to be buildable. The merger doctrine provides that adjoining land in common ownership must be added to nonconforming land in order to bring it into conformity or reduce the nonconformity. The grandfather provision at issue in the case exempted certain lots from increases in lot area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements, protecting owners whose lots previously conformed with zoning requirements. However, the exception was not available to lots held in common ownership with an adjoining lot, which may be combined, or merged, to reduce or eliminate the nonconformity. The bylaw provided that lots held in common ownership are entitled to grandfathering for five years after the effective date of a zoning change, if certain requirements are met, after which the lots are combined or merged to reduce nonconformity.

Massachusetts Property Owner Appeals After Zoning Board Denies Building Permit

Published on: May 15, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

In some cases, home owners may need to seek approval from local officials before making significant changes to their properties. In a May 5, 2017 opinion, the Massachusetts Land Court reviewed a zoning board decision rejecting a building permit application filed by the plaintiff. The key question for the court was whether a vacant, dimensionally non-conforming parcel of land merged for zoning purposes with an adjacent property, therefore rendering the vacant parcel separately unbuildable.

The vacant parcel at issue was held in trust, with the plaintiff and her mother as trustees. The plaintiff also owned, in her individual name, an adjacent property with an existing house. The plaintiff filed a building permit application to construct a single-family home on the vacant parcel, which was denied on the ground that it was under common control with the adjacent parcel.

In Massachusetts, the doctrine of merger provides that adjacent lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a single lot for zoning purposes in order to minimize non-conformities. Once merger occurs, it cannot be undone. In other words, a person owning adjoining lots may not artificially divide them in order to restore old record boundaries and obtain a grandfather non-conforming exemption. Instead, to preserve the grandfather non-conforming exemption, the lots must retain their separate identity.

Massachusetts Land Court Reverses Permit Approval for Construction of Two Buildings on Property Owner’s Lot

Published on: April 17, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Property owners may apply for special permits allowing them to construct non-conforming buildings or renovations on their land. In some cases, the grant of such a permit may be challenged by abutting neighbors. The Massachusetts Land Court recently reviewed a zoning board decision in an April 6, 2017 appeal. The defendant in the case was granted a special permit to replace an existing single-family house on his property with a much larger two-story house and another freestanding accessory building with a three-car garage. The plaintiffs, who owned abutting property near the defendant, appealed the decision to the land court.

The case was complicated by the fact that there was another single-family house on the defendant’s property. In 1945, a zoning by-law was enacted that made it unlawful to have two dwellings on one residential lot. However, the 1945 by-law also provided that legally pre-existing nonconforming structures and uses could be continued and may be expanded if a special permit is granted. The issue for the land court was whether the two houses, both of which were once part of the same greenhouse, were, in fact, each used as a separate single-family residence prior to 1945. If they were not, the special permit would be invalid.

The land court found that the two existing houses on the defendant’s property were dwellings because they are detached buildings separated from other structures and designed to accommodate a residence for the use of one or more individuals. Accordingly, its use was nonconforming under the 1945 by-law and could be continued only if both of the houses existed lawfully before the zoning by-law was enacted. After reviewing the evidence of record, the land court determined that the second dwelling did not exist until after the enactment of the 1945 zoning by-law. As a result, the land court held that it was not a lawful pre-existing, nonconforming use and may not be continued.

Massachusetts Homeowner Appeals Zoning Variance Issued to Historical Society

Published on: March 20, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Whether or not a property owner can challenge a zoning decision regarding another property depends on his or her standing. The Massachusetts Land Court decided a March 13, 2017 case in which the defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to object to a local zoning board decision. The court provided a thorough explanation of the issues and requirements relating to injury and standing.

The case arose out of the proposed construction of a two-story addition that would be used to store the archives of a historical society. The historical society sought a variance from the zoning board to construct its addition outside of the side-yard setback allowed by local regulations. The plaintiff owned and resided at a property across the street from the historical society building, approximately 240 feet from the site of the proposed addition. When the zoning board granted the variance, the plaintiff filed a complaint appealing the decision.

Under the Massachusetts Zoning Act, only a person aggrieved has standing to challenge a decision of a zoning board of appeals. Abutters, landowners directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to abutters who are within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner are entitled to notice of zoning board hearings and have a rebuttable presumption that they are aggrieved by a decision concerning another property. The defendant may rebut the presumption by showing that the plaintiff’s claims are not interests that the Zoning Act is intended to protect.

Plaintiffs Object to Neighbors’ Proposed Garage Construction in Massachusetts Zoning Appeal

Published on: February 13, 2017 | by Pulgini & Norton, LLP

Individuals may have the right to appeal a decision from their local zoning board if the matter directly affects them or their property. The Massachusetts Land Court reviewed such an appeal in a January 3, 2017 case, in which the plaintiffs objected to a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board had granted a special permit allowing the defendants to rebuild a deteriorated garage on their property. By issuing the permit, the Board approved a proposed structure that was higher than the original and in a different location of the defendants’ property.

On appeal, the Land Court first addressed the issue of standing by determining whether the plaintiffs had suffered some infringement of their legal rights. The plaintiffs asserted standing based on noise, density, harm to the salt marsh and related flooding, diminished views and vistas, and diminution in value of their property. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had standing based only on an increase in density but not on the other grounds asserted. In particular, the court found that the new garage’s increase in height and the movement of residential activity closer to the plaintiffs’ property were sufficient to provide standing based on an increase in density. The court went on to rule against the plaintiffs’ procedural arguments, holding that the Board’s actions in approving and issuing the special permit were not in error.

Finally, the court reviewed whether the special permit was granted based on an unreasonable, capricious, or arbitrary exercise of judgment in applying the land use regulation to the facts. Pursuant to the local bylaws, special permits are only granted if the applicant demonstrates that no undue nuisance, hazard, or congestion will be created, and there will be no substantial harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood or town. In addition, the proposal must not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, zoning district, or town.