This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Plaintiffs Michael Finamore and Finecamp KOA, Inc. owned and operated the Webster Family Campground in the Town of Webster. In 2019, the Town inspected the Campground, found several zoning violations, and ordered plaintiffs to remedy the violations. The plaintiffs appealed the order to the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, which affirmed.
Plaintiffs first contended that the Building Commissioner exceeded his authority by ordering Plaintiffs to inform campers that campers could not live at the Campground year-round. The court found that as the owners and operators of the Campground, Plaintiffs were responsible for complying with the Town’s zoning by-laws. Thus, it was within the Building Commissioner’s authority to order plaintiffs to remedy the violation.
Plaintiffs next argued that the ZBA erred by not finding that year-round use of the Campground qualified as an existing nonconforming use. In making its determination that year-round use was not “grandfathered,” the ZBA reasoned that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that such use had been uninterrupted since before 650-40 was adopted, and that such use had not expanded improperly. Drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the court found that the Holmes affidavit offered in support suggested that at least three individuals lived year-round at the Campground from 1970 to 1981. In this case, Plaintiffs failed to establish that the use of eight to twenty-five year-round campsites today was of similar quality and character as the use of three or four year-round campsites in 1970. Accordingly, the ZBA rationally found that year-round use of the Campground was not a protected nonconforming use.
As to Plaintiffs’ “class of one” equal protection claim, Plaintiffs alleged that Indian Ranch – the other campground in the Town – was not inspected in 2017 or subjected to an enforcement action. The court found that there was no indication in the record that Indian Ranch, like the Campground, had a history of health violations. As a result, no reasonable jury could conclude that, relative to the 2017 inspection and later enforcement action, Indian Ranch and the Campground were “similarly situated.” The court is therefore granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs on this claim.
As a final matter, Plaintiffs contended that the Building Commissioner was not authorized to inspect the Campground. Under Massachusetts law, however, the Building Commissioner was granted authority to enforce the Town’s zoning by-laws. Accordingly, the court found that no jury reasonably could find that the Town officials’ inspection and enforcement was “improper in motive or means.”
Finamore v Piader, 2022 WL 3087947 (D. MA 8/3/2022)