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

23-P-1045

DAVID GOLD & another1

vs.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF RUTLAND & others.2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiffs, David Gold and Carolyn Streeter, appeal 

from a Superior Court judgment dismissing their challenge to the 

decision of the zoning board of appeals of Rutland (ZBA) to 

issue a special permit for defendants Blue Sky Towers III, LLC, 

doing business as BSTMA III, LLC (Blue Sky); and New Cingular 

Wireless PCS, LLC, doing business as AT&T (AT&T), to build a 

monopole cell tower. The plaintiffs argue that the proposed 

cell tower would violate the requirements for a special permit 

pursuant to § 51 of the town's zoning bylaws. We affirm.

1 Carolyn Streeter.

2 Jean E. Bigelow; Blue Sky Towers III, LLC, doing business 

as BSTMA III, LLC; and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, doing 

business as AT&T.
2

Background. Pursuant to §§ 15(B) and 53 of the zoning 

bylaws, defendants Blue Sky and AT&T applied to the ZBA for a

height variance for the cell tower to be built on a parcel of 

residential property owned by defendant Jean E. Bigelow. 

Pursuant to § 51 of the zoning bylaws, Blue Sky and AT&T

simultaneously applied to the ZBA for a special permit to

construct and operate that cell tower. The ZBA conducted 

hearings on both the height variance and the special permit.

On June 29, 2022, the ZBA granted the application for a 

height variance. The plaintiffs, individuals who own property 

either abutting or in the immediate vicinity of the cell tower 

site, did not appeal from or otherwise challenge the grant of 

the variance. On August 3, 2022, the ZBA granted the

application for a special permit. Pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, 

§ 17, the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court from the 

issuance of the special permit. A judge granted the defendants' 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the plaintiffs' 

complaint and affirming the ZBA's issuance of the special 

permit. The plaintiffs appealed.

Discussion. We review the allowance of motions for 

judgment on the pleadings de novo. See Boston v. Conservation 

Comm'n of Quincy, 490 Mass. 342, 345 (2022).
3

The plaintiffs argue that the ZBA did not have authority 

under § 51 of the zoning bylaws to issue the special permit to 

construct the cell tower, because the tower did not satisfy the 

height requirements in § 53 of the zoning bylaws. Section 51 

provides,

"A personal wireless service facility involving 

construction of one or more ground or building (roof or 

side) mounts shall require a special permit. Such 

facilities may locate by special permit in all zoning 

districts within the Town, provided that the proposed use 

complies with the height requirements of § 53 . . . ."

The plaintiffs claim that the ZBA was not authorized to issue 

the special permit because the proposed cell tower did not 

comply with the height requirements of § 53. They argue that a

variance from the height requirement of § 53 does not satisfy 

"compli[ance] with the height requirements of § 53" for the 

purposes of this provision. We are not persuaded.

Variances are "individual waivers of local legislation," 

providing relief from zoning requirements (footnote omitted). 

Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. 188, 207 & 

n.23 (2005). The ZBA may grant a variance to excuse compliance 

with a zoning bylaw. See G. L. c. 40A, § 10. See also Cornell

v. Michaud, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 607, 616 (2011) ("[A] landowner 

can . . . seek an appropriate variance or permit so as to bring 

the property into compliance with a zoning by-law"). In this 

case, the ZBA granted a variance to excuse compliance with the 
4

height requirements of § 53. In considering the special permit

application, the ZBA noted that it had previously "voted to 

grant a variance for relief from the height requirement in 

Section 53 of the [bylaw]." The ZBA's explicit reference to 

this variance in its decision on the special permit demonstrates

that the variance from the height requirements of § 53 also 

provided relief from the same height requirements in § 51, the 

special permit provision. Otherwise, granting the height 

variance would have been meaningless.

The cases on which the plaintiffs rely are inapposite. In 

Mendes v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 527, 

529-530 (1999), the court held that a use variance was not a 

nonconforming use within the meaning of G. L. c. 40A, § 6.3 And 

in Seguin v. Planning Bd. of Upton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 374, 376

(1992), the court held that a variance from zoning bylaws did 

not satisfy the requirements of the subdivision control law, 

G. L. c. 41, §§ 81K-81GG. Neither Mendes nor Seguin supports

the proposition that a variance from one zoning bylaw cannot 

satisfy the requirements of other zoning bylaws. The ZBA's

granting the height variance meant that the height of the cell 

3 Plaintiffs cite Mendes for the proposition that a use 

variance "is not a 'conforming' use." This misstates the 

court's holding that a variance is not a nonconforming use. See 

Mendes, 28 Mass. App. Ct. at 529-531.
5

tower was no longer an impediment to the issuance of the special 

permit.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Hand & 

Grant, JJ.4),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: May 17, 2024.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.