Appealing a Zoning Decision: Timing is Everything

foreclosure appeal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision this week on appealing a zoning decision in Massachusetts.  This case demonstrates the critical importance of timely appealing such a matter.  The case, McIntyre v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Braintree, is included below.

Overview

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward.  In Braintree, a building inspector (who was responsible for enforcing the city’s zoning requirements) issued a building permit.  An abutter of the property that received this building permit appeal this decision.

This type of appeal, commonly known as an administrative appeal, is allowed under Massachusetts law and usually must be made to the town or city’s zoning board of appeals.  This type of appeal determines whether the building inspector (or zoning enforcement officer) correctly interpreted the applicable zoning requirements.

An administrative appeal is also allowed when the zoning officer refuses to enforce a zoning requirement, and an aggrieved party believes that this non-action violates the zoning requirements.

An administrative appeal is different than a request for a variance, where a property owner is seeking an exemption from a zoning requirement.  An administrative appeal simply determines whether the applicable zoning requirements were correctly interpreted. 

Deadline for Appealing a Zoning Decision 

Appealing a zoning administrative decision comes with a strict deadline: “thirty days from the date of the order or decision which is being appealed.”  As the Appeals Court explained, this deadline is “strictly enforced and is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the board’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal.”

Here, the party seeking to appeal the building permit filed their appeal forty-four days after learning about the building permit . . . well after the thirty-day deadline.   

To avoid dismissal of their appeal, this party tried a creative argument.  Under Massachusetts law, if a zoning board of appeals fails to issue a decision on an administrative appeal within 100 days after the filed appeal, a party can win their appeal through a process known as constructive approval.

In this case, the board of appeals held that the party failed to timely file their appeal of this administrative decision.   However, the board failed to issue its decision within the 100 day deadline.  As such, the party argued that a constructive approval occurred.  This party argued that, because a constructive approval occurred, it did not matter that they missed the original thirty-day deadline.

Decision and Practical Implications

The Appeals Court rejected this argument, holding that a party needs to meet the thirty-day deadline in order to pursue an administrative appeal.  Although constructive approval is a recognized means of winning an appeal when a board of appeals fails to act, this is not an excuse for ignoring the thirty-day deadline under G.L. c. 40A, § 15.

This case has an important lesson for appealing a zoning decision: deadlines matter.  This is in keeping with other Massachusetts decisions, where the failure to satisfy such a deadline can be fatal to one’s case.

Conclusion 

If you need assistance with appealing a zoning decision, contact me for a consultation.

 

McIntyre v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Braintree

Zoning Enforcement 101: Lessons from a Baaad Outcome Before a Zoning Board

A recent decision from the Town of Danver’s Board of Appeals demonstrates the importance of Massachusetts zoning restrictions, and their relevance to property owners.  This case, involving a homeowner’s keeping of goats on their property, shows how baaad things can happen for not following local zoning controls (pun intended!).

Overview

The homeowners in this case had been raising goats in their Danvers home for the last six years.  Danvers, like most towns and cities in Massachusetts, uses zoning districts to classify  what is allowed, and not allowed, in various sections of the municipality.

The problem in this case?  This residential zoning district prohibits “animal husbandry.”

Zoning Enforcement 

A neighbor started this action by making a complaint to the Town of Danvers, through a request to enforce this zoning requirement against the goat owners.  Massachusetts law requires that towns and cities have officials in charge of enforcing zoning restrictions (often designated as building inspectors) and the law allows for written enforcement requests to these officials, if someone believes they are not being followed.

Here, the Town of Danvers agreed with this complaining neighbor, and issued the homeowners an order that the goats needed to go.

Appeal of a Zoning Enforcement Decision 

Massachusetts law allows any “person aggrieved” by a zoning enforcement action to appeal, which is generally made to the town or city’s zoning board of appeals.  Such an appeal asks the board to determine whether the town or city properly applied the zoning ordinance.

Here, the Town of Danvers Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously agreed with the town’s building inspector that goats were not allowed in this residential district.

This homeowner still has options if she wishes to pursue this matter further.  She could file a court action to determine if this interpretation of the zoning ordinance is correct.  Or, as the article suggests, she could work to change the town’s zoning laws, to allow goats in residential districts.

Practical Implications 

This story illustrates the importance of zoning enforcement in Massachusetts, the process for requesting such enforcement, and appealing an unfavorable decision.  Many homeowners are unaware of the many, many ways that zoning restrictions regulate how one can use their property.  Failure to abide by these land use controls can lead to zoning enforcement consequences.

It is important to note that, in most cases, a homeowner is not permitted to seek a variance for a prohibited use in a zoning district.  A variance, which is a requested exemption from a zoning restriction, may be allowed for terms of a zoning ordnance, but not for “a use or activity not otherwise permitted in the district in which the land or structure is located . . .”  Property owners need to be aware that the variance process, which allows leeway in particular circumstances where a zoning restriction imposes a hardship, is not an option where a requested use is expressly prohibited. 

Conclusion 

If you need assistance with a zoning enforcement action, contact me for a consultation.

Obtaining a Variance of a Zoning Requirement

Zoning consists of land use controls imposed by Massachusetts towns and cities that regulate how an owner may use their property.  Most of us, I believe, would agree that zoning serves a useful purpose: we do not want businesses to be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, or unusually large buildings in areas meant to be quiet neighborhoods.  Zoning requirements are often detailed and specific as to what can and cannot be done with property.

If a property owner wishes to obtain an exception from a particular zoning requirement, they have a right to request a variance.

Process for Obtaining a Variance 

Obtaining a variance generally requires a property owner to file an appeal with their local zoning board of appeals (“ZBA”).  The owner generally has to publish notice that it is pursuing such an appeal, and those who live near the property (“abutters”) are generally provided notice as well.  The ZBA will hold a public hearing on the matter and issue a written decision on whether it is denying or granting the variance, or granting it with conditions.

What is Required for Obtaining a Variance?

Obtaining a variance under Massachusetts law requires a property owner to show the following:

[O]wing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.

Importantly, a claimant must prove each of these elements.  Failure to do so, even under the most compelling circumstances, will result in a variance denial.

Practical Considerations for Obtaining a Variance

There are many, many important points about variances, which I plan to write more about in the future.  Here are a few practical considerations for requesting a variance.

No automatic right to a zoning variance.  Massachusetts law is clear that a property owner is not automatically entitled to a variance, and must meet the requirements listed above.  In particular, a property owner must show something unique about their property that justifies this relief.

A ZBA is not permitted to determine the validity of a zoning ordinance.  A property owner may believe that a zoning restriction is unfair and should not be a land use requirement.  A ZBA, however, is not permitted to make such a finding.  Only a court action challenging a zoning ordinance can determine this.

A land owner must generally wait two years before trying again for a variance, if unsuccessful.  If a property owner is denied a variance, he or she must generally wait two years before applying again.

Right to Appeal.  A property owner who is denied a variance has a right to appeal this decision to Superior or Land Court.  A “person aggrieved” by such a decision may do so as well.

Conclusion 

Obtaining a variance requires a strong understanding of Massachusetts zoning law and an ability to make a compelling case for this relief to a ZBA or court.  If you need assistance with such an endeavor, contact me for a consultation.

 

Who Can Challenge a Zoning Decision in Massachusetts?

foreclosure appeal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision this week clarifying who can challenge a zoning decision, and the role of a trial judge in making this inquiry.  This decision, Talmo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Framingham, is included below.

Background 

This case started with a Framingham resident applying for a building permit to construct a guest room addition to their home.  The City granted the permit, and one of abutters of the property (who lived nearby) sought a zoning enforcement action, essentially arguing that this guest room addition violated the City’s zoning ordinances, and that the City should order this project to stop.  The City of Framingham’s Zoning Board of Appeal initially agreed, and stopped the project.

The party wishing to construct this addition changed their plans for this project, and applied again for a building permit, which the City allowed.  The abutter sought a similar zoning enforcement action, which the zoning appeals board denied.  This abutter then appealed this zoning decision to Land Court.

Who Can Challenge a Zoning Decision? 

This case concerns an important question for Massachusetts zoning law: who can challenge a zoning decision?

During the trial for this case, the Land Court observed that this abutter was not in direct proximity to the guest room addition, and had not otherwise identified any real harm that he would suffer from this addition.  The Land Court, on its own, subsequently dismissed this case, holding that this abutter lacked standing to pursue this appeal.  Simply put, the abutter had “no dog in the fight” because he would not be affected by the guest room addition.

The Appeals Court agreed with the Land Court’s decision.  Under Massachusetts law, only a “person aggrieved” by a zoning matter has a right to challenge a zoning decision.  The Appeals Court agreed that this abutter did not show how he would be harmed by this zoning decision, and therefore had no grounds for pursuing this case.

An important part of this case was how the Land Court reached this decision.  Here, the Land Court made this finding entirely on its own: the opposing party never pursued the issue of standing as a defense to this case.  The Appeals Court agreed that in a zoning matter, a trial court could decide on its own that a party lacked standing to pursue such a case.  In other words, even if neither party raises this issue, it can still become a determining factor if the trial court is not convinced that a party has adequate standing.

Practical Implications

This decision reaffirms that, to challenge a zoning decision, one must have “skin in the game.”  Failure to have standing in such a matter can lead to the immediate dismissal of such a case.

Talmo recognizes that a trial court is well within its right to inquire about a party’s aggrieved status on its own . . . even if the opposing side never raises it.  The Appeals Court emphasized that the trial court should give fair notice to a party if it is concerned about one’s standing.  Nonetheless, standing is a mandatory threshold that one must carefully consider when pursuing a zoning appeal.

Conclusion

Talmo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Framingham is an example of the importance of having an experienced real estate litigation attorney on your side for a zoning appeal.  If you find yourself in need of such help, contact me for a consultation.

Talmo v. BOA Framingham

Guest Blog Post: Appeals Court Divides on Adequacy of Notice to Town Clerk for Zoning Appeal

The Massachusetts Property Law Blog is proud to have Attorney Joseph N. Schneiderman guest blog on the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s recent Hickey v. ZBA of Dennis decision, an appeal involving proper notice for a zoning appeal.  Attorney  Schneiderman is an appellate attorney licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut and may be contacted at connlawjoe@gmail.com.

On June 15, in Hickey v. ZBA of Dennis,  93 Mass. App. Ct. 360, the Appeals Court, by a 2-1 vote, held that two zoning appellants had provided adequate notice to the Dennis Town Clerk and reversed allowance of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Specifically, although the appellants did not address the appeal to the Town Clerk, an assistant clerk discussed the notice with the town planner within the appeal period.

The Hickeys own land along Cape Cod Bay and proposed to build a staircase.  Ultimately, the Board denied them zoning relief and filed their decision with the Town Clerk on April 14, 2016. On April 20, 2016,  by counsel, the Hickeys timely appealed to the Land Court under G.L. c. 40A, §17. Counsel sent copies of the appeal by certified mail to the individual members of the Board at their home and one to the chairman at Dennis Town Hall. The town planner received the appeal on April 25 and discussed it with an assistant town clerk some time before May 4. However, the Hickeys did not notify the Town Clerk until May 5 by e-mail-after learning that she had not received the appeal.

The Board moved to dismiss, asserting that the Hickeys did timely not serve the Town Clerk pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, §17.  The Land Court allowed limited discovery on the issue of timeliness. The Land Court later converted the Board’s motion into one for summary judgment and concluded that there was not timely notice.

The Appeals Court reversed and reinstated the zoning appeal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Green recalled the failure to timely serve a zoning appeal on a Town Clerk was a jurisdictional defect that courts strictly policed.  Indeed, notice was important not only to the town but anyone who may be aggrieved.

However, so long as the Clerk had actual knowledge of the appeal, notice sufficed.  The Court recalled that filing a copy of the complaint but no notice of appeal (and vice-versa) suffice, as did serving the clerk at home after hours on the last day of the appeal period. Finally, serving the appeal at town hall with papers addressed to the town clerk that the clerk did not receive (and learned of from a town planner) sufficed.  Citing Konover v. Planning Board of Auburn, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 319 (1992).  The Court held that Konover echoed the present case where the Dennis town planner received the appeal and discussed it with an assistant town clerk before the end of the 20 day period. This sufficed to show actual knowledge.

Justice Singh dissented, asserting that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving timeliness and noted deposed the town clerk to prove notice. Justice Singh argued that the cases the majority relied on dealt with instances where the appellants actually  attempted to serve the clerk-but for whatever reason, service was imperfect. By permitting actual knowledge to suffice, the majority would subject town officials to litigation-and permit the exception to swallow the rule. Since the appellants did not attempt to serve the town clerk in a timely fashion, Justice Singh would have dismissed their appeal.

This case poses an interesting doctrinal duel. On the one hand, notice is a fundamental pre-requisite to a zoning appeal. However, notice does not occur in a vacuum and the important end is that a town (and anyone aggrieved) be aware that a zoning appeal is occurring. An honest mistake about addressing papers or reaching the wrong room of town hall rather than the town clerk should not nullify an entire zoning appeal-nor should an evasive clerk.

However, Justice Singh raises a valid point that the Clerk’s knowledge should become an issue if there was unsuccessful or imperfect attempt to serve them. Unlike in Konover, where the papers were addressed to the Clerk but left at the wrong office, the record reflects that the appellants definitely did not address the appeal to the Clerk or otherwise notify the Clerk until after Day 20.

And indeed, the better practice, as the Appeals Court suggested in Konover,  is to address and confirm service by certified mail and return receipt personally before the expiration of the date. Indeed, after hours efforts at service can backfire.  Given this doctrinal duel and its public consequences,  this case may well be a candidate for further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court.  Indeed, a group involved with other litigation with the Hickeys has moved to intervene in the Appeals Court to seek further appellate review.

Joe has an appellate practice in Massachusetts and Connecticut and has previously taken on the Boston Zoning Board in the Appeals Court.