Court Opinion

ID: 9953029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 14:07:15.058587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:36.996058
License: Public Domain

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-332

                           CASEY FLEMING & others1

                                       vs.

              ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF OXFORD & others.2

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       Casey Fleming, the plaintiff, appeals from a Land Court

 judgment affirming on summary judgment the decision of the

 Oxford zoning board of appeals (board) upholding a cease-and-

 desist order from the town's zoning enforcement officer.                The

 order prohibits the plaintiff from maintaining a significant

 breeding and sale operation involving bearded dragons and a

 breeding operation involving turtles on his residentially zoned

 property.    The plaintiff claims that the breeding and sale of

 1 Kevin F. Carbonneau and Robert J. King. Fleming represents
 himself pro se on appeal. While he purports to appeal on behalf
 of all three owners, Fleming cannot represent others in court
 because he is not an attorney. See Wilbur v. Tunnell, 98 Mass.
 App. Ct. 19, 23 (2020). Because Carbonneau and King did not
 appeal the Land Court's order as to them, it is not affected by
 this appeal.
 2 Peter LaFlash, David Silverman, Stephen Balcunas, Alfred St.

 Germain, and Thomas Purcell in their official capacity, as they
 are members of the Oxford zoning board of appeals.
the bearded dragons and the breeding of turtles are (1)

"agriculture," an as-of-right use; (2) a permitted home

occupation; and (3) exempt from the section of the town's zoning

bylaw limiting the quantity of animals allowed without a special

permit, because the bearded dragons and turtles are "customary

household pets."   We affirm.

     Background.   "We summarize the findings set forth in the

order on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment,

supplemented by other uncontroverted facts in the summary

judgment record, . . . and viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was

entered," here, the plaintiff (quotation and citation omitted).

Williams v. Board of Appeals of Norwell, 490 Mass. 684, 685

(2022).   The plaintiff, along with his two co-plaintiffs,

jointly owned a property in Oxford.   They lived at the property,

which was in a residential district zoned R-3 pursuant to

Oxford's zoning bylaw.   The plaintiff operated a business

breeding and selling bearded dragons3 on his property, and also

kept a large number of breeding turtles as pets, with no

specific plans to sell the turtles.   The plaintiff estimated

that he had approximately 400 bearded dragons and sixty turtles

3 Bearded dragons are medium-sized lizards that are native to
Australia and a popular pet among reptile enthusiasts. Rich,
Hess & Axelson, Bearded Dragons -- Owning, VCA Animal Hospitals,
https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/bearded-dragons-owning.

                                 2
at the property.   Except for when the weather was warm enough

for the bearded dragons and turtles to be outside, the plaintiff

kept the bearded dragons in the garage of the property and the

turtles in the basement.   The plaintiff also bred some insects

on-site to feed to the bearded dragons; a plastic drape

separated the areas where the insects and the bearded dragons

were kept.

     1.   The underlying order and board appeal.    The town's

zoning enforcement officer issued a cease-and-desist order to

the plaintiff in April 2021, citing violations of chapter III,

sections 2.1.3, 2.1.6,4 and 3.85 of the zoning bylaw (provisions

4 Section 2.0, Home Occupations, reads in pertinent part as
follows:
     "Home occupations are permitted in all districts . . . if
     they comply with the conditions set forth below:

     "2.1 Performance Standards

     "No home occupation shall be permitted that:

     " . . .

     "2.1.3 May create a hazard to person or property, results
     in electrical interference, or becomes a nuisance;

     " . . .

     "2.1.6 Uses more than twenty-five (25) percent of the net
     floor area of the dwelling."

5 Section 3.0, Accessory Uses, reads in pertinent part as
follows:
     "Accessory uses and structures may include, but are not
     limited to, the following:

                                  3
about home occupations, allowed animals, and accessory uses,

respectively).   Oxford, Mass., Zoning Bylaw c. III, §§ 2.1.3,

2.1.6, 3.8.   The plaintiff appealed the order to the board that

same month, claiming that (1) breeding and raising bearded

dragons and turtles was "agriculture," an as-of-right use; (2)

section 3.8 applied only to chickens and ducks; and (3) the

building commissioner's estimate of the floor area used by the

business was unsubstantiated, rendering the citation under

section 2.1.6 improper.   The plaintiff did not appeal the

citation under section 2.1.3 (prohibiting home occupations that

may create a hazard, electrical interference, or a nuisance).

    In July 2021, the board upheld all cited violations from

the cease-and-desist order.   The board found that the plaintiff

was running a commercial breeding operation that may cause a

hazard, electrical interference, or a nuisance; the plaintiff

was using more than twenty-five percent of the residential floor

area of the property for the commercial operation; the turtles

and bearded dragons were not pets; and breeding was not the

    " . . .

    "3.8 Egg-laying chickens and ducks six or under total
    chickens and ducks combined, are excluded from all
    districts except upon grant of a license by the Board of
    Selectmen. All other animals or birds, including egg-
    laying chickens and ducks, in quantities of seven or over,
    other than customary household pets, are excluded from all
    districts except upon grant of a special permit by the
    Board of Selectmen."

                                 4
primary use of the property and thus was not "agriculture" under

the zoning bylaw or G. L. c. 40A, § 3.

    2.   Land Court appeal and summary judgment order.         At the

end of July 2021, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Land

Court appealing the board's order.      The Land Court judge

determined, on cross motions for summary judgment, that (1) the

keeping, breeding, and sale of bearded dragons did not

constitute "agriculture;" (2) the plaintiff had not appealed the

cease-and-desist order's citation under section 2.1.3 and

therefore could not maintain his business as a home occupation

under the zoning bylaw; and (3) bearded dragons were not

customary household pets, and, whether or not turtles were

customary household pets, "there is nothing customary about

owning 60 of them at a time and keeping them in a basement."

The judge concluded that "the [board]'s Decision is based on a

reasonable interpretation of the [zoning bylaw] and is entitled

to deference," and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

    Discussion.      1.   Standard of review.   "The allowance of a

motion for summary judgment is appropriate where there are no

genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (quotation and

citation omitted).    Williams, 490 Mass. at 689.    "[B]ecause the

Land Court judge decided the case on cross motions for summary

judgment, we give no deference to [her] decision.       Instead, from

                                   5
the same record as the motion judge, the reviewing court

examines the allowance of summary judgment de novo" (quotation

and citation omitted).       Pinecroft Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of

Appeals of West Boylston, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 122, 128 (2022).

This is because the judge, on cross motions for summary

judgment, "does not engage in fact finding."      81 Spooner Rd.,

LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692, 699

(2012).   Rather, "[w]here both parties have moved for summary

judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to

the party against whom judgment [entered]," here the plaintiff

(citation omitted).    Id.

    "Review of a board's decision . . . pursuant to G. L.

c. 40A, § 17, involves a 'peculiar' combination of de novo and

deferential analyses . . . .      Although fact finding . . . is de

novo, a judge must review with deference legal conclusions

within the authority of the board" (footnotes omitted).       Wendy's

Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc. v. Board of Appeal of

Billerica, 454 Mass. 374, 381 (2009).      "If the board's decision

is supported by the facts found by the judge, it 'may be

disturbed only if it is based on a legally untenable ground, or

is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious or arbitrary.'"       Fish v.

Accidental Auto Body, Inc., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 355, 362 (2019),

quoting Bateman v. Board of Appeals of Georgetown, 56 Mass. App.

Ct. 236, 242 (2002).     "Deference is . . . owed to a local zoning

                                    6
board because of its special knowledge of the history and

purpose of its town's zoning by-law" (quotation and citation

omitted).   Wendy's, supra.   "Accordingly, a judge must give

substantial deference to a board's interpretation of its zoning

bylaws and ordinances" (quotation and citation omitted).     Id.

Because the board's interpretation and application of the zoning

bylaw was reasonable, and we see no dispute of fact that would

render the board's decision unreasonable when viewed in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff, we affirm.

     2.   As-of-right agricultural use.   The board found that

"the breeding of reptiles is not the primary use of the Property

and such activity does not constitute 'agriculture' in the Town

of Oxford nor pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 3."6   The plaintiff

maintains on appeal that "the breeding and raising of animals is

agricultural, which Chapter 4, Section 2.4, Table 1 of the

Zoning Bylaws permits as of right in R-3 Residential areas."

     "[W]here [a bylaw's] language is plain and unambiguous, we

enforce the bylaw according to its plain wording," but where

"terms are undefined or otherwise ambiguous, we will defer to

6 The plaintiff maintained both before the board and the Land
Court that the business was protected as "agriculture" pursuant
to G. L. c. 40A, § 3, which prohibits restrictions on using
certain land for agricultural purposes. The plaintiff does not
endeavor to prove here that the property meets the requirements
for protection under that statute, and his argument no longer
relies on G. L. c. 40A, § 3.

                                 7
the local zoning board's reasonable interpretation" (quotation

and citation omitted).   Pinecroft, 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 128.

Interpreting a bylaw follows ordinary rules of statutory

construction, including giving words their usual and accepted

meanings and considering the law's purpose.     See Williams, 490

Mass. at 693-694.   "An interpretation of a bylaw provision is

unreasonable if it is inconsistent with that provision's purpose

or the bylaw as a whole."   Pinecroft, supra.

    "Agriculture" is not defined by the zoning bylaw, nor by

another controlling statute.   Therefore, we defer to the board's

interpretation unless it is unreasonable and inconsistent with

the purpose of the zoning bylaw because the board, with its

specialized knowledge about the bylaw's history and purpose, was

in the best position to interpret it.   See Wendy's, 454 Mass. at

381; Pinecroft, 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 128.    We cannot say that

the board's interpretation -- that the activities involved in

this case did not fall under "agriculture" -- and the conclusion

that the plaintiff's use was not protected as of right by the

zoning bylaw were unreasonable.   See Pinecroft, supra.

    The plaintiff cites several cases interpreting the meanings

of "livestock" and "agriculture" dating from both before and

after a definition of "agriculture" was incorporated into G. L.

                                  8
c. 40A, § 3.7    None of these cases required the board to conclude

that the bearded dragons and turtles involved in this case are

"livestock" and therefore "agriculture."       Much of the case law

that has contemplated the definition of "livestock" as it

pertains to zoning laws has involved properties primarily used

for "agricultural" pursuits, while the plaintiff's property is

primarily a residence.    See Town of Sturbridge v. McDowell, 35

Mass. App. Ct. 924, 925 (1993).       Further, bearded dragons and

turtles are a far cry from the animals traditionally found on

working farms -- such as horses, dogs, cattle, pigs, and goats -

– and contemplated by Massachusetts law.

       3.   Home occupation limitations.    The board ordered the

plaintiff to cease and desist "all commercial activities,

including . . . raising, or breeding reptiles," and cited the

plaintiff under both sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.6 of chapter III of

the zoning bylaw.     Section 2.1.3 prohibits home occupations that

may create a hazard or become a nuisance (hazard or nuisance

provision), and the zoning enforcement officer stated that he

7   The definition is found in G. L. c. 128, § 1A:

       "'Farming' or 'agriculture' shall include farming in all of
       its branches and . . . the raising of livestock including
       horses, the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise,
       the keeping and raising of poultry, swine, cattle and other
       domesticated animals used for food purposes, bees, fur–
       bearing animals, . . . performed by a farmer, who is hereby
       defined as one engaged in agriculture or farming as herein
       defined, or on a farm."

                                  9
"observed nuisance odors and dangerous electrical cords being

used, as well as hazardous heat lamps in containers full of

leaves and other flammable materials."   Section 2.1.6 prohibits

home occupations which use more than twenty-five percent of the

net floor area of the dwelling (floor area provision), and the

zoning enforcement officer estimated that the business used

approximately fifty-six percent of the total floor area of the

property.

     While the plaintiff appealed the citation under the floor

area provision, section 2.1.6,8 he did not appeal the citation

under section 2.1.3, instead stating that he was "working with

Town officials to correct the code violations cited at the

subject premises."   Nothing in the record indicates that the

town ever withdrew the citation for hazard or nuisance

violations under section 2.1.3; indeed, the board upheld the

cease-and-desist order with respect to section 2.1.3.     Thus, the

board's decision under section 2.1.3 stands unchallenged.     See

Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006).     The

plaintiff's failure to appeal the citation under 2.1.3 disposes

of his "home occupation" argument altogether, because a

violation of either section 2.1.3 or section 2.1.6 prevents the

8 In his appeal to the board, the plaintiff contested the
citation under section 2.1.6, claiming that the business used
less than twenty-five percent of the floor area of the home.

                                10
plaintiff from maintaining his business as a home occupation

under the zoning bylaw.

       4.   "Customary household pets."   The board found that (1)

"bearded dragons are not customary pets in the Town of Oxford,"

(2) bearded dragons were not kept as pets at the property but

rather for commercial breeding purposes, and (3) "the turtles

and bearded dragons clearly are not pets due to the large number

of them."9    The plaintiff claims that the board erred in finding

a violation of the household pet provision of the bylaw,

reasoning that turtles and bearded dragons are sold in pet

stores and thus are customary household pets within the plain

meaning of the term.     Assuming without deciding that turtles and

bearded dragons are customary household pets, the animating goal

of section 3.8 as it pertains to household pets appears to have

been permitting the animals to be kept in the quantities in

which people tend to keep household pets, and the board had

specialized knowledge of that goal.       See Wendy's, 454 Mass. at

381.   Although one might debate whether having ten or eleven

nonbreeding dogs would violate the household pet provision, it

was reasonable for the board to decide that keeping breeding

turtles by the dozens and breeding bearded dragons by the

9 Chapter III, section 3.8 of the zoning bylaw requires a special
permit for residents to keep more than seven animals "other than
customary household pets" (household pet provision).

                                  11
hundreds was not keeping the animals as customary household

pets.    See Pinecroft, 101 Mass. App. Ct. at 128.

       Conclusion.   The plaintiff has not shown the board's

conclusion to be legally untenable, unreasonable, whimsical,

arbitrary, or capricious.     See Fish, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at 362.

We discern no error in the decision granting summary judgment to

the defendants.

                                       Judgment affirmed.

                                       By the Court (Hand,
                                         Hershfang & Brennan, JJ.10),

                                       Assistant Clerk

Entered:    March 21, 2024.

10   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  12