## Facts

- Louis and Ellen Hieb owned a home in Chatham, Massachusetts, in a zoning district regulating height and neighborhood character.
- The Hiebs sought a special permit to demolish their existing house and reconstruct and expand it at a greater height.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the special permit in June 2006.
- Brian and Carol Kenner, abutters living across the street, appealed, alleging the project would:
  - obstruct their ocean view and reduce their property value; and
  - create traffic and safety problems because a wall or related work would narrow the roadway, allegedly preventing two vehicles from passing safely.
- The permit holders presented evidence that the new house would be about seven feet taller than the prior structure and offered comparative elevation data showing the reconstructed roofline only modestly higher than the Kenners’ property elevation.
- The trial judge credited the permit holders’ evidence and found the Kenners’ assertions on key points exaggerated or speculative.

## Issues

1. Whether abutters who receive a statutory presumption of aggrievement under G. L. c. 40A, § 17 retain standing after defendants present credible evidence rebutting that presumption.
2. Whether alleged loss of ocean view and harm to neighborhood visual character, on this record, constituted a particularized, non-speculative injury within interests protected by the applicable zoning bylaw.
3. Whether alleged traffic hazards and diminution in property value were supported by competent evidence and sufficiently tied to protected zoning interests to confer standing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Appeals Court and reinstated the Land Court judgment dismissing the appeal for lack of standing.
- The court held the abutters’ presumption of aggrievement was rebutted by credible, specific evidence offered by the defendants.
- The court held the plaintiffs failed to prove, with competent evidence, a particularized injury that was more than de minimis and within the zoning bylaw’s protected interests.
- The court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility findings and declined to reweigh the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Abutters have a rebuttable presumption of standing as “persons aggrieved” under G. L. c. 40A, § 17; once rebutted by credible evidence, plaintiffs must prove standing with competent evidence.
- Standing requires a particularized injury to a protected interest, different in kind or magnitude from the community at large, and more than minimal or slightly appreciable harm.
- Alleged harms must fall within interests the zoning scheme protects (such as traffic impacts or neighborhood visual character), and cannot rest on speculative personal opinion.
- Diminution in property value, without a demonstrated, non-speculative zoning-related injury, is insufficient to establish standing.
- Appellate courts generally defer to trial-level credibility determinations in zoning appeals unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court held that the defendants rebutted the abutters’ presumption of aggrievement and that the plaintiffs’ claims of view impairment, aesthetic harm, traffic danger, and value loss were not proven as particularized, non-speculative injuries within the zoning bylaw’s protected interests; the complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of standing.


Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 944 N.E.2d 163 (Mass. 2011)