Loss of value does not (necessarily) grant standing to challenge a special permit

In Pobeda RT II, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Watertown, et al, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals (Middlesex Cty.) affirmed the lower court’s ruling that a residential property owner did not have standing to challenge the Watertown Zoning Board of Appeal’s granting of a special permit for a 3-story research and development building in an adjacent industrial zone.

For those unfamiliar, standing is a requirement for any plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against a defendant. It is the right to bring the suit and can be 1) demonstrated by a showing that plaintiff was harmed by the action or law in question; or 2) granted by law.*

In finding that the plaintiff did not have standing, the court cited the Massachusetts Zoning Act, which gives standing only a “person aggrieved” by the ZBA’s decision. While an abutter is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of aggrievement, the court found that the plaintiff’s argument that the new development would diminish the residential property’s value failed as a matter of law.

This finding follows the doctrine that loss of value by itself does not give value unless "it is 'derivative of or related to cognizable interests protected by the applicable zoning scheme.'" The court then examined the Watertown zoning ordinance and did not find any reference to a goal of protecting individual property value. Rather, the zoning ordinance was enacted to protect the values of the community as a whole, “the very basis upon which the constitutionality of zoning legislation hinges.”

If you are also a zoning dork, you can read the whole decision here: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2024/05/31/c22P1154.pdf

*Standing can also be shown in hypothetical situations, a la the chilling effect of the First Amendment. But that is well beyond the scope of this blog.