Zoning – Standing – Hotel

Listen to this article

Where two plaintiffs have challenged the issuance of a special permit to construct a 120-room hotel in Brockton, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of standing because neither plaintiff has asserted a factual basis to conclude that either will suffer a measurable harm to an interest protected by the Brockton zoning ordinance.

“Before the court is a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction brought by Defendant, KARM Brockton, LLC (‘KARM’), the recipient of a special permit to construct a 120-room hotel on its property at 55 Christy’s Drive in Brockton. It contends that the Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain this action under G.L.c. 40A, §17 because neither has alleged facts that demonstrate that they will be harmed by the special permit decision. …

“In this case, [plaintiffs Brockton Area Multi-Services, Inc. (BAMSI)] and Belmont Street South [LLC] allege different harms arising from the Board’s decision to issue the special permit to KARM. …

“BAMSI’s Amended Complaint, coupled with the affidavit of Peter Evers, allege that construction of a hotel on KARM’s property will bring traffic, noise, and distraction to the neighborhood that will cause measurable harm in three distinct ways. First, the hotel will be ‘detrimental to the neighborhood and adjacent properties’ because it will change the character of the ‘first-class office park’ that exists on Christy’s Drive and the adjacent areas that include Pleasant Street. Second, the traffic, noise, and distraction from the hotel will discourage its constituency from continuing to use the ‘vital’ services BAMSI offers. Third, the hotel will create risks to its constituency in the form of exposure to crimes like drug transactions, human trafficking, and sex workers. …

“The final injury alleged by BAMSI is an increased risk of harm to its constituency from exposure to crime like drug transactions, human trafficking, and sex work, which BAMSI claims ‘are often present in other Brockton area hotels.’ … Ostensibly, BAMSI contends that the KARM hotel will likely become a haven for criminal activity — because crime happens at other unnamed Brockton hotels — which, in turn, will create a risk of harm to the BAMSI constituency. There is no other factual allegation from which the court can infer that the KARM hotel is likely to cause an increase in crime in the area with a particular impact on BAMSI.

“Assuming, without determining, that safety from crime is a property-related interest protected by the Brockton zoning ordinance, BAMSI’S allegation of increased crime at the KARM property amounts to only subjective fear and speculation. … As such, it does not support a finding of standing. …

“Belmont Street South claims injury in the form of a loss in value to the Pleasant Street Properties if a hotel is constructed on the KARM property. In addition to the general allegations of the Amended Complaint, Belmont Street South relies on the affidavit of Vanessa Gumbert. However, scrutiny of that affidavit reveals few facts and many vague assertions. …

“For the reasons set forth in this decision, neither Plaintiff has asserted a factual basis from which the court can conclude that it will suffer a measurable harm to an interest protected by the Brockton zoning ordinance that will likely flow from the Board’s decision. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss is allowed and judgment will enter accordingly.”

Brockton Area Multi-Services, Inc., et al. v. Galligan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-040-25) (14 pages) (Smith, J.) (Plymouth Land Court) (Docket No. 24 MISC 000565) (July 30, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.