Zoning – Standing – Variances

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff abutter has challenged variances to construct two single-family homes on North Avenue in Mendon, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing under G.L.c. 40A, §17, as the plaintiff has not established aggrievement.

“This is an appeal of a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mendon (the ‘Board’) granting variances to Defendant Country Homes, LLC (‘Country Homes’) to construct two single-family homes on its land on North Avenue in Mendon. The Plaintiff, Cheryl Lemon, Trustee of the John Lemon and Cheryl Lemon Irrevocable Trust (‘Lemon’), an abutter to the project, challenges the decision pursuant to G.L.c. 40A, §17 on the grounds that the Board exceeded its authority in granting the variances.

“Before the court is Country Homes’ Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of Lemon’s appeal on the grounds that she lacks standing. The court held a hearing on July 11, 2025, and took the matter under advisement. For the reasons set forth in this decision, the Motion for Summary Judgment is allowed and the Complaint will be dismissed because Lemon does not have standing to continue with this appeal. …

“Country Homes requests the dismissal of Lemon’s appeal on the grounds that she lacks standing under G.L.c. 40A, §17. …

“… Lemon identifies the following five categories of aggrievement: (i) increased density and change to the neighborhood character; (ii) reduced privacy; (iii) destruction of woodlands and natural buffers; (iv) increased traffic; and (v) a reduction in property value. …

“However, before addressing Lemon’s specific claims of aggrievement, there is an overarching theme that permeates all her arguments on appeal: that the Board ‘failed to adequately consider the lack of a qualifying hardship, the availability of conforming alternatives, the detrimental impact on the public good and the derogation from the meaning and intent of the by-law.’ … Indeed, she forewarns that the Board’s decision ‘opens the door for developers to completely ignore frontage requirements as part of density control’ and will ‘expose the Town of Mendon to legal action for any denial of a frontage variance based upon this precedent, … and in general reduce the rights of property owners because their reasonable expectation of enforcement of Zoning By-Laws, of which they had to comply, is now moot.’ … Taken together, these statements reveal that her fundamental objection to the Board’s decision lies in how it reached that decision and the domino effect that she predicts that the decision will have on future requests for zoning relief in Mendon.

“Massachusetts courts have consistently declined to recognize standing for an abutter who charges a board with failing to properly enforce a zoning bylaw. Indeed, an abutter has no private right to enforce a zoning bylaw. … Thus, to the extent that Lemon ties her claim of injury to the defective way the Board discharged its duties, she has not established aggrievement sufficient to establish standing under G.L.c. 40A, §17. …

“For the reasons set forth in this decision, Lemon lacks standing to bring this action and, therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. Country Homes’ motion for summary judgment is allowed and the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Judgment will enter accordingly.”

Lemon v. Clark, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-050-25) (13 pages) (Smith, J.) (Worcester Land Court) (Docket No. 24 MISC 000599) (Sept. 19, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.