Bertrand v. Brd. of Appeals

21 Citing cases

  1. Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of App. of Andover

    64 Mass. App. Ct. 337 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 11 times

    Concerns about the environmental ramifications of a proposed project can provide standing. See Paulding v. Bruins, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 709 (1984); Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912 (2003). The plaintiffs claimed that construction of the development, changes in the topography of the land, and an increase in impervious land surface could alter the water table and patterns of storm water runoff that in turn might foul their well water, impair their septic systems, flood their land, and provide breeding grounds for mosquitos.

  2. Van Buren v. So. Boston New Housing, No

    No. 02-5467-A (Mass. Cmmw. Feb. 4, 2005)

    This diminution also is an injury capable of conferring standing. See McGee v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 931 (2004); Bertrand v.Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912 (2003);Bedford, 25 Mass. App. Ct. at 377 n. 4; and Ruggles v.Board of Appeal of the City of Boston, supra. It is undisputed that New Housing's dwelling would cut off all 12 of Van Buren's south side windows from light and air.

  3. Parker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Medford

    No. 09-P-2331 (Mass. Aug. 11, 2011)

    See Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 12 (2009). See also Bedford v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 377 & n.4 (1988); Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912 (2003); McGee v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 931 (2004). Parker has made a credible showing of a plausible claim of harm regulated by the municipal zoning code.

  4. Mariani v. Planning Bd. of Dennis

    No. 22-P-848 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 25, 2023)

    Bertrandv.Board of Appeals of Bourne is not to the contrary; there, the plaintiffs' privacy concerns were compounded by affirmative evidence of the negative impacts caused by artificial light and sewage issues. Bertrandv.Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 912 (2003).

  5. Arsem v. Horsley

    No. 21-P-1070 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 28, 2022)

    See J_d. See also Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 912, 912 (2003) (concerns about privacy sufficient to find standing if not "ill-founded or speculative"). Moreover, the proposed structure would be further away from Arsem's home than initially planned -- leaving more room for screening and buffering measures.

  6. Talmo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham

    93 Mass. App. Ct. 626 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We assume without deciding that contamination of Talmo's well caused by the dual septic systems, if proved, would constitute the requisite particularized injury to support standing. Cf. Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912, 790 N.E.2d 704 (2003) (abutters articulated density concerns related to noise, light, privacy, and environmental implications of two septic systems instead of one). Specifically, the judge found that the evidence was insufficient to show: (i) that the septic systems on the Buckleys' land were inadequately separated from groundwater; (ii) that the groundwater flows from the Buckleys' land toward Talmo's well; or (iii) that several other potential sources of contamination, including Talmo's own septic system, could be ruled out as the cause of any harm to Talmo's well.

  7. Murrow v. Emery

    93 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018)

    ’ " Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 11-12 (2009), quoting from Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 31 (2006). See Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912 (2003) ; Dwyer, 73 Mass. App. Ct. at 295-296. In those cases, however, the plaintiffs were direct abutters and their standing derived from demonstrated incremental impact on identified harms such as noise, decreased privacy, decreased light, and increased artificial light arising from approved construction, which violated the density provisions applicable to the abutting property.

  8. Murrow v. ESH Circus Arts, LLC

    93 Mass. App. Ct. 233 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    This conclusory statement, unadorned with particularized details, is insufficient to establish aggrievement. See Nickerson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Raynham, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 680, 683, 761 N.E.2d 544 (2002) ("While the plaintiff undoubtedly is inconvenienced by the heavy traffic ... this evidence is an insufficient predicate for finding that he is a ‘person aggrieved’ "). Compare Marashlian, supra at 723, 660 N.E.2d 369 (standing found where defendant's hotel project would likely increase traffic and eliminate some public parking, upon which plaintiffs relied for "business and personal needs"); Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912, 790 N.E.2d 704 (2003) (finding standing existed where plaintiff alleged environmental impacts of the septic system, increase in artificial light and noise, and decrease in privacy resulting from defendant building two houses directly behind the plaintiff's house). Therefore, contrary to Murrow's claim, the judge did not err in finding that Murrow had the burden to show an "alleged injury" that was "special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community" and failed to do so.

  9. Murrow v. ESH Circus Arts, LLC

    No. 17-P-430 (Mass. App. Ct. May. 17, 2018)

    See Nickerson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Raynham, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 680, 683 (2002) ("While the plaintiff undoubtedly is inconvenienced by the heavy traffic . . . this evidence is an insufficient predicate for finding that he is a 'person aggrieved'"). Compare Marashlian, supra at 723 (standing found where defendant's hotel project would likely increase traffic and eliminate some public parking, upon which plaintiffs relied for "business and personal needs"); Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912 (2003) (finding standing existed where plaintiff alleged environmental impacts of the septic system, increase in artificial light and noise, and decrease in privacy resulting from defendant building two houses directly behind the plaintiff's house). Therefore, contrary to Murrow's claim, the judge did not err in finding that Murrow had the burden to show an "alleged injury" that was "special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community" and failed to do so. Compare Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redev.Authy., 374 Mass. 37, 46 (1977) (Boston Edison has standing as a "person aggrieved" where its loss is "direct, substantial, and ascertainable").

  10. Holmes v. Andersen

    15-P-345 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    See Sheppard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 11-13 (2009) (variance; decreased light and property value related to density interest protected by zoning law), S.C., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (2012). See also Bertrand v. Board of Appeals of Bourne, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 912 (2003) (variance; increased noise and artificial light, and decreased backyard privacy related to objectives of density regulation at issue); McGee v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 930, 930-931 (2004) (variance; diminishment of light and air, and obstruction of view related to floor area ratio and rear yard limitations in zoning code); Central St., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hudson, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 487, 492 (2007) (variance; diminution of property value related to frontage requirement in zoning provision); Epstein v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 752, 757, 761 (2010) (variance; elimination of light, air, and views, and diminished property value were interests recognized by zoning enabling act); Marhefka v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Sutton, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 515, 518-521 (2011) (variance; diminished view related to density and dimensional provisions of zoning by-law). Holmes has identified no such interest here; the sole thrust of his argument below was tha