iStock illustration

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed the development industry and housing advocates a victory Friday when it reversed a lower court ruling that gave broad rights for abutters to sue over nearby development projects.

A Sherborn couple, Alison and Robert Murchison, had sued the town Zoning Board of Appeals for approving the construction of a house across the street from theirs. Citing concerns over increased density in the neighborhood and the potential that stormwater runoff from the developed site could flow onto their property and into their basement and driveway, the Murchisons claimed the house would lower their property values, and claimed the town ZBA did not properly measure the abutting lot’s width when approving the homebuilder’s plans.

The case had spurred intense interest among real estate industry groups, with the Homebuilders and Remodels Association of Massachusetts, commercial real estate trade group NAIOP-MA and the Real Estate Bar Association filing friend of the court briefs in support of the Sherborn ZBA.

All three groups said the lower court’s ruling would dramatically expand abutters’ ability to kill town-approved projects.

Former Chief Justice of the Land Court Karyn Scheier ruled that the Murchisons did not have standing to sue as they did not offer sufficient evidence to show that water runoff could enter their basement and driveway, even during a 100-year storm. The court also found the Murchison’s claims that increased density in their neighborhood would harm them were either based on speculation or would result in only negligible impacts.

The Appeals Court reversed the Land Court decision, saying the Murchisons had standing to sue over their density claims by virtue of being neighbors.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruling reversed the Appeals Court ruling and reaffirmed the Land Court decision Friday, according to a notice posted to the court’s website. A formal written decision with the justices’ reasoning is expected to be released later on.