Jepson v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that an abutting property owner had standing to challenge an affordable-housing comprehensive permit based on alleged flooding impacts, while declining to decide whether the municipal housing authority was aggrieved. The court also held that a local zoning board may waive dimensional zoning requirements applicable to an incidental commercial component of an affordable housing development when commercial use is permitted under the local zoning bylaw. The judgment affirming the comprehensive permit was affirmed.

Holdings

1. Jepson had standing because he presented credible evidence of potential flooding to his property, an injury to an interest protected by the G. L. c. 40B statutory scheme.
2. A municipal housing authority that owns land abutting a proposed affordable housing development may qualify as a person for standing purposes under G. L. c. 40B, § 21, although the court did not decide whether the housing authority was a person aggrieved.
3. When commercial use is permitted on the property under the local zoning bylaw or ordinance, a board acting under G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23, may waive local dimensional zoning requirements applicable to an incidental commercial component of an affordable housing development.
4. The alleged post-permit factual disputes concerning beaver activity and storm-water management did not require vacatur of the comprehensive permit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jepson had standing under G. L. c. 40B to challenge the comprehensive permit based on alleged flooding to his property.
2. Whether a municipal housing authority that owns abutting land may qualify as a person for standing purposes under G. L. c. 40B, § 21.
3. Whether a local board of appeals may waive local dimensional zoning requirements for an incidental commercial component of an affordable housing development when commercial use is permitted in the underlying zoning district.
4. Whether post-permit evidence concerning beaver activity and storm-water management required vacatur of the comprehensive permit.

Disposition

affirmed