By Beth David, Editor
In a 12/29/25 decision, the Massachusetts Land Court ruled in favor of the Fairhaven School Department, allowing the contested storage shed project to move forward. After a bit of convoluted court and local board back and forth, the final case was an appeal by the School Department filed on 2/10/25 to overturn the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to revoke a commercial building permit at its 1/7/25 meeting (see FNN 1/9/25 issue). That permit had been issued on 10/15/24.
The case also went before the Mass. Building Appeals Board on July 10, 2025. That board also ruled in favor of the School Department, overturning the revocation of the building permit according to minutes available online.
At the 1/7/25 meeting, nine abutters submitted a petition to the ZBA asking that the permit be revoked, citing a variety of reasons, including that the shed is an eyesore. The ZBA voted to revoke the permit, with member Amy Goyer voting “no.”
In the judgment on 12/29/25, Judge Lauren E. Reznick ruled that the abutters had no standing and that the ZBA exceeded its authority when it revoked the permit. The court ordered that the permit be reinstated.
In the Memorandum of Decision, the court summarizes the case, stating that during the proceedings, the ZBA lawyer, Town Counsel, Heather White, appeared in the case, but “declined to defend,” leaving the defense to the private abutters.
The abutters did not appear and were defaulted on 8/8/25.
Oral arguments were held on 10/30/25, with the School Department arguing that the abutters had no standing to appeal, and that the School Department was not properly notified of the Abutters’ appeal, the public hearing, or the filing with the Town Clerk.
The court ruled that the abutters do not have standing as “persons aggrieved,” because “their alleged harms are only aesthetic and general in nature.”
The court cites previous cases where that ruled abutters must show individualized harms the Abutters might suffer.
To be aggrieved, a person must suffer some infringement of his legal rights, wrote the court.
“Generally speaking, concerns about the visual impact of a proposed structure on an abutting property are insufficient to confer standing,” wrote the court citing a 2011 case. “Moreover, a ‘general civic interest in the enforcement of zoning laws is not enough to confer standing.’”
“The alleged harms of the Abutters, to the extent any can be discerned from the record, are not the type of interests protected by G.L. c. 40A or the Fairhaven Zoning Code and do not threaten any injury special and different to the Abutters from the rest of the community,” wrote the court. “The undisputed material facts show that the Abutters were not ‘persons aggrieved’ and therefore did not have standing to appeal to the ZBA under G.L. c. 40A, § 8. As a result, the ZBA did not have jurisdiction to render its decision granting their appeal and revoking plaintiff’s commercial building permit. The Abutters ‘had no right to file [the appeal] and the board had no authority to hear it.’” Turner, 305 Mass. at 193. On this basis, the ZBAs decision ‘exceeds the authority of the board’ and must be annulled. G.L. c. 40A, § 17.”
The court did not make a judgment on the School Department’s assertion that it was not properly notified of the hearing due to insufficient facts to support the claim.
In a filing on 9/18/25, the ZBA asked that the School Department not be granted attorney’s fees and costs. On 9/18/25, the School Department withdrew its request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The storage shed is being built by students at New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School. The project has been ongoing throughout the litigation. Generally, building is allowed to continue during litigation at the risk of the party doing the work.
The shed has been in contention, with ZBA chairperson, Patrick Carr, fighting the project from both his seat on the ZBA, an appointed position, and his seat on the Planning Board, an elected position.
Mr. Carr has a declared Conflict of Interest in the case because he owns Seaspray Container Company with his daughter, Erin Carr, who has also spoken out publicly against the project. Seaspray contracts with the School Department for two containers at the High School that will not longer be needed when the storage shed is completed.
Mr. Carr has appeared before the Select Board twice asking for permission to deliberate on the shed matter, and was denied both times. Mr. Carr state at the meetings and in filings that the $198/month rental fee is not significant enough to influence his decision making.
He first asked for an exemption at the 12/30/24 meeting (see 1/9/25 issue); and again at the 4/14/25 meeting (see 4/17/25 issue).
The Memorandum of Decision and the Judgement documents are available on the Neighb News website (see below), www.neighbnews.com under archives and then 1/8/26 issue. Land Court documents are available online through the Mass.gov website. Search by case number, 25 MISC 000064, to find all documents.
•••
Click here to download the 1/8/26 issue: 01-08-26 PolarPlunge
Click here to download the shed judgment and memo of decision: 12-29-25 ShedMemo_Judgment
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal
