Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a municipal planning board lacked standing to challenge a comprehensive permit issued under G. L. c. 40B. The court concluded that the specific standing provisions of c. 40B govern rather than the more general provisions of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, and that the planning board was neither a “person” nor a “person aggrieved” under c. 40B. The court affirmed the Land Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the planning board could establish standing under the general zoning appeal statute, G. L. c. 40A, § 17, to challenge a comprehensive permit issued under G. L. c. 40B.
- Whether the planning board was a 'person aggrieved' entitled to standing under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.
- Whether alternative theories based on the project's alleged lack of affordability, agency concerns, legislative intent, or the possibility that no other party could sue could confer standing.
Holdings
- A challenge to a comprehensive permit issued under G. L. c. 40B must satisfy the standing requirements of G. L. c. 40B, § 21; a plaintiff may not rely on the more general standing provision in G. L. c. 40A, § 17.
- A municipal planning board is not a 'person' or a 'person aggrieved' entitled to challenge a comprehensive permit under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.
- The planning board's alternative theories—including treating the comprehensive permit as a variance or special permit, relying on legislative intent, relying on agency affordability concerns, or asserting that otherwise no one could sue—do not establish standing.
Key quotations
“When a decision of a zoning board of appeals is rendered pursuant to the authority of G. L. c. 40B, we should not look to the more general statutory scheme of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, to determine standing.” (367)
“Thus, we conclude that it is improper to consider standing under G. L. c. 40A, § 17, where the board of appeals issued the contested permit under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.” (368)
“Thus, we conclude that the planning board is not a person aggrieved under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.” (369)
“For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the planning board does not have standing to appeal from the grant of a comprehensive permit issued under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.” (371)
Factual background
Hingham Campus applied under G. L. c. 40B for a comprehensive permit to construct a continuing care retirement community on 108.5 acres. The board of appeals unanimously granted the permit after several months of public hearings. The planning board alleged that the project violated local height restrictions, did not qualify as affordable housing because of its entrance deposit and rental and service fees, and failed to satisfy other statutory requirements.
Procedural history
The planning board sued Hingham Campus, LLC and the town's board of appeals, alleging that the board exceeded its authority under G. L. c. 40B by granting a comprehensive permit. A Land Court judge granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed because the planning board lacked standing.