SUNPIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, & Another v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PETERSHAM (2025)

Citation: SUNPIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, & Another v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PETERSHAM (2025)
Parent Document: SUNPIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, & Another v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PETERSHAM (2025)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2025-07-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10625896/sunpin-energy-services-llc-ano... ↗

Full Text

1,171 chars

The plaintiffs then commenced this action in the Land Court, challenging the board's decision by filing a complaint pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17.  As we discuss in more detail later, the dissenting board member acknowledged that the proposed project is not prohibited by statute or the town's zoning bylaw (bylaw), but she nonetheless voted against granting a special permit because, among other reasons, she determined that the development of the solar energy system involving extensive tree removal was incompatible with the "general welfare of the inhabitants of [the town]," and the State's diversified energy policy, which "strongly discourages" siting such projects in a forest.  On cross motions for summary judgment, the judge concluded that the dissenting member properly relied on the standards articulated in the bylaw and that this case was not one of "those rarely encountered points where no rational view of the facts . . . supports the board's conclusion," quoting Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Billerica, 454 Mass. 374, 383 (2009) (Wendy's).  Accordingly, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the board.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text