Amherst Growth Study Committee, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst
| Decision Date | 24 May 1973 |
| Parties | AMHERST GROWTH STUDY COMMITTEE, INC. et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF AMHERST. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Thomas B. Arnold, Boston, for plaintiff.
James B. Krumsiek, Springfield, (Douglas R. Peterson, Springfield, with him) for Otto J. Paparazsc Associates, Inc.
Stephen B. Monsein, Amherst, for Board of Appeals of Amherst.
Before ROSE, GOODMAN, and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant's plea in abatement was properly sustained. The plaintiff, organized after the board's decision granting the special permit, but before the expiration of the twenty-day appeal period set out in G.L. c. 40A, § 21, purports to be the successor to a committee organized to oppose this development. The trial judge found that the plaintiff is not a property owner, and so far as appears from the evidence, the plaintiff itself has no current interests or activities of any kind other than to oppose this development. A statement of corporate purposes cannot by itself create standing. Because neither the pleadings nor the evidence discloses that the plaintiff has any legal rights that have been infringed (Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430, 86 N.E.2d 920), the judge was correct in finding that the plaintiff is not a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of § 21. One 'zealous in the enforcement of law but without private interest' is not an aggrieved person. Godfrey v. Building Commr. of Boston, 263 Mass. 589, 590, 593, 161 N.E. 819. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739--740, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636. The record before us furnishes no basis to consider the plaintiff's argument that it should have standing to represent rights of its 'members.'
Interlocutory decree affirmed.
Final decree affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown
...of organizational purpose cannot clothe a civic association with aggrieved person status. Amherst Growth Study Comm. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 826, 827, 296 N.E.2d 717 (1973)." 17 Mass.App.Ct. at 999-1000, 459 N.E.2d 1245. We adhere to that holding. The discussion conce......
-
Nantucket Land Council, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket
...this particular plaintiff is a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of § 81BB. See Amherst Growth Study Committee, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass.App. 826, 296 N.E.2d 717 (1973); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, --- (Mass.App.Adv.Sh. (1975) 584, 590--......
-
Owens v. Board of Appeals of Belmont
...348; Rafferty v. Sancta Maria Hosp., 5 Mass.App. 624, 626, 367 N.E.2d 856 (1977). See also Amherst Growth Study Comm. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass.App. 826, 827, 296 N.E.2d 717 (1973). Mauro's standing rested on a different footing. He is a nearby property owner and he apparently ......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Board of Appeals of Westwood
...& Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 430-431, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949); Amherst Growth Study Comm. v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 1 Mass.App. 826, 827, 296 N.E.2d 717 (1973); Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava, 3 Mass.App. 210, 213-214, 326 N.E.2d 348 (1975); Redstone v. ......