JOHN F. LINHARES & Others v. PLANNING BOARD OF DENNIS & Others.

── JOHN F. LINHARES & Others v. PLANNING BOARD OF DENNIS & Others. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-594 JOHN F. LINHARES & others1 vs. PLANNING BOARD OF DENNIS & others.2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff, Janice Costa,3 filed a complaint in 2018 against the planning board of Dennis (board) and the trustees of the Cape Commerce Nominee Trust (trust) under G. L. c. 40A, § 17, challenging the board's issuance to the trust of a special permit to construct twenty-four single-family homes on a parcel of land abutting her property.4 Following a bench trial in 2024, 1 Mary K. Linhares, Susan J. Sargent, and Janice Costa. 2David L. Howes; and Catherine MacGregor and Molly MacGregor, as trustees of the Cape Commerce Nominee Trust. 3Of the four plaintiffs named in the complaint, only Costa appeals. 4Defendant David L. Howes was listed as the owner of the parcel on the board's special permit decision, but the trust purchased the parcel from Howes in 2021. a Superior Court judge (trial judge) entered judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the board's decision was, in any case, properly supported by credible evidence. The plaintiff appeals, contending that it was error to dismiss her complaint for lack of standing, that the denial of her motion to amend the complaint constituted an abuse of discretion, and that the board's decision must be annulled for failure to comply with statutory requirements. We affirm. Background. The plaintiff owns and lives on a property that fronts on Alexander Drive in South Dennis. The trust owns the adjacent lot (lot 8), currently occupied by a single-family home. The trust also owns an approximately five-acre parcel of vacant land located behind both properties. In 2018, the trust applied for a special permit to construct a twenty-eight unit housing development on the rear parcel. Six of these units would be deed-restricted affordable units. Residents of the development would enter and exit the development via a driveway to be constructed through lot 8. At a board meeting in December 2018, the board voted to grant the special permit for a twenty-four unit development, with certain conditions. The plaintiff and the owners of two other properties abutting the proposed development promptly 2 appealed the board's decision to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 40A, § 17. The complaint alleged that the board had acted in excess of its authority by granting the special permit in the absence of a finding by the Dennis board of health, required by § 4.9.2.2.2 of the Dennis zoning bylaw (bylaw), "that the waste water system recommended for the site meets all state and local environmental standards for the protection of public health and water quality." In April 2019, the board of health voted to approve the project's proposed wastewater treatment system. In November 2020, a different