The Appeals Court reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal, for lack of standing, of the plaintiffs’ challenge to several variances granted to a defendant developer. Those variances allowed the developer to demolish an existing one-story building on a lot adjacent to the plaintiffs’ four-story condominium building, and replace the one-story building with a new four-story condominium building. On one side, the proposed new building would be between one and six feet from the plaintiffs’ existing building. The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge for lack of standing, concluding that the plaintiffs’ evidence of “aggrievement” insufficient. The Appeals Court reversed, finding that provision of adequate light and air, reducing overcrowding and preserving property values are among the core purposes of zoning, and that the plaintiffs’ evidence in this regard was more than sufficient.
Epstein v. Boston Board of Appeal (pdf), Appeals Court decision dated September 21, 2010.