Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973

Amherst Growth Study Committee, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Decided May 24, 1973

1 Mass. App. Ct. 826; 296 N.E.2d 717; 1973 Mass. App. LEXIS 566

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Aquacultural Research Corp. v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014)
Harvard Square Defense Fund, Inc. v. Planning Board (Mass. App. Ct. 1989)
Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown (Mass. App. Ct. 1988)
Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union v. County of Bristol (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO v. Labor Relations Commission (Mass. 2000)
Allen v. Old King's Highway Regional Historic District (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2000)
Planning Board of Marshfield v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Pembroke (Mass. 1998)
Town of Wakefield v. Labor Relations Commission (Mass. App. Ct. 1998)
Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
Chongris v. Board of Appeals (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Board of Appeals (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)
Owens v. Board of Appeals (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)
Nantucket Land Coun. v. Planning Bd., Nantucket (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)
Waltham Motor Inn, Inc. v. LaCava (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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 *827twenty-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), 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. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 739-740. The record before us furnishes no basis to consider the plaintiffs argument that it should have standing to represent rights of its “members.”

Thomas B. Arnold for the plaintiff. James B. Krumsiek (Douglas R. Peterson with him) for Otto J. Paparazzo Associates, Inc. Stephen B. Monsein, for the Board of Appeals of Amherst, was present but did not argue.

Interlocutory decree affirmed.

Final decree affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.