Standerwick v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered whether abutting and neighboring landowners could establish standing to challenge a comprehensive permit issued under the Commonwealth's affordable-housing statute, G. L. c. 40B. The court held that alleged diminution in property values, untethered to an interest protected by c. 40B, is not a legally cognizable basis for standing. The court also addressed the rebuttable presumption of standing afforded to abutters and the evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption.

Holdings

1. A claim that an affordable-housing project will diminish the value of abutting property is not, standing alone, an injury to an interest protected by G. L. c. 40B and therefore does not confer standing to challenge the comprehensive permit.
2. An abutter's presumption of standing is rebutted when the defendant offers evidence warranting a finding contrary to the presumed fact; the plaintiff then bears the burden of proving standing, and the defendant need not affirmatively disprove every asserted injury.
3. The plaintiffs did not establish standing because the developer rebutted their presumptive standing and the plaintiffs failed to provide direct, non-speculative evidence of an injury to a legally cognizable interest protected by c. 40B.

Questions Presented

1. Whether diminution in the value of property abutting an affordable-housing development is an injury to an interest protected by G. L. c. 40B and therefore a cognizable basis for standing to challenge a comprehensive permit.
2. Whether an abutter's presumptive standing is rebutted when the defendant presents evidence showing that the plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of proving a legally cognizable injury, including reliance on the plaintiff's discovery responses and expert evidence addressing other claimed impacts.
3. Whether the plaintiffs established standing based on their remaining allegations of traffic, drainage, crime, vandalism, noise, privacy, or other impacts after the presumption of standing was rebutted.

Disposition

affirmed