THOMAS M. REZZA v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF MERRIMAC; THOMAS A. REZZA, Third- Party

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

24-P-402

THOMAS M. REZZA

vs.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF MERRIMAC; THOMAS A. REZZA, third-
party defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Thomas M. Rezza, and the third-party

defendant, Thomas A. Rezza (together, the Rezzas), appeal from a

Superior Court judge's judgment and order allowing the

defendant's motion for summary judgment. The judgment upheld

the decision of the zoning board of appeals of the town of

Merrimac (defendant or board) affirming an order of the town's

zoning enforcement officer that the plaintiff cease and desist

operation of his landscaping business on the premises of his

residence. The Rezzas appeal, arguing that the plaintiff's

business qualifies as a "home business workshop" and is allowed
as of right under the town's zoning bylaw.1 For essentially the

same reasons given by the Superior Court judge in her thoughtful

memorandum of decision, we affirm.

Background. 1. Facts and procedural history. Viewed in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Bruno v. Zoning

Bd. of Appeals of Tisbury, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 48, 51 (2018), the

summary judgment record establishes the following material

facts. The plaintiff resides at a property in Merrimac with his

father, mother, and three brothers.2 The property is located

within Merrimac's Agricultural Residential (AR) zoning district.

The plaintiff has operated a landscaping business, known as

Rezza Brothers Landscaping (business), from the property since

2014. The business employs eight to ten people, including the

plaintiff and his three brothers. The business regularly stores

heavy dump trucks, landscaping equipment, and trailers at the

property in a Quonset hut and on open areas of the property that

are visible to the public.

In 2018, an oral complaint regarding an alleged improper

use of the property prompted the zoning enforcement officer to

1 The Rezzas also appealed from an order denying their
motion for reconsideration, but make no separate argument on
appeal challenging that denial.

2 The property is owned by the plaintiff's father, the
third-party defendant.

2
view the property. At that time, no action was taken against

the plaintiff. In 2021, after receiving two written complaints

about noise and other activity taking place at the property, the

officer determined that the plaintiff's operation of his

business violated the Merrimac zoning bylaw. The officer sent a

cease and desist letter to the plaintiff, notifying him of the

violation and of his right to appeal the order to the board.

The plaintiff timely exercised his right to appeal, and the

board held a public hearing. After the hearing, the board

issued a decision affirming the cease and desist order.

The plaintiff then appealed the board's decision to the

Superior Court under G. L. c. 40A, § 17, arguing that the

decision was "unsupported by the relevant facts . . . ,

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with law." The plaintiff alleged that the board

erred by failing to address whether a landscaping business

qualified as a home business workshop. The defendant moved for

summary judgment, and the Rezzas filed a cross motion for

partial summary judgment.3 The judge allowed the defendant's

motion and denied the Rezzas' cross motion, thereby affirming

the board's decision. The Rezzas timely appealed to this court.

3 The third-party defendant was added shortly before the
summary judgment proceedings.

3
2. Merrimac's zoning bylaw. The Merrimac zoning bylaw

(bylaw) provides that "no building, STRUCTURE or LOT may be

used, and no building STRUCTURE or part thereof may be erected,

reconstructed, enlarged or altered, except in conformity with

the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is

located." Article 6 of the bylaw governs the types of

structures and uses allowed within the AR district.

Specifically, section 6.2 lists nine permitted uses and

structures which include, as relevant here, a "home business

workshop." A "home business workshop" is defined in article 2

of the bylaw, within the definition of "home occupation," as

"the business or shop of a painter, carpenter, electrician or

similar construction trade." It is one of four "classes" of

home occupations listed in the definition, which imposes the

following six limitations on all four classes:

"1. The occupation is situated in the petitioner's
dwelling.

2. There is no major structural change to the exterior or
any other external evidence of such home occupation, other
than one accessory, nonflashing SIGN of not more than four
square feet.

3. Not more than one person other than the resident shall
be employed on the premises.

4. No more than four clients shall be scheduled in any one
hour nor more than 16 in any one day and only between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

4
5. There shall be sufficient parking area on the LOT to
accommodate expected peak parking by the resident family,
employees and clients.

6. No produce nor stock-in-trade shall be sold at retail
except insofar as incidental to the home occupation (e.g.
teaching supplies), or as specifically permitted in
connection with farm uses or home retail occupations."

The town planning board may grant a special permit

"conditionally modifying such limitations."4 The plaintiff has

never applied for a special permit.

Discussion. "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'" (citation omitted). Williams v.

Board of Appeals of Norwell, 490 Mass. 684, 689 (2022). Our

review is de novo. See Tracer Lane II Realty, LLC v. Waltham,

489 Mass. 775, 778 (2022). "We will uphold a zoning board's

decision and that of the reviewing Superior Court, 'if a

rational basis for the [decision] exists which is supported by

the record.'" Eastern Point, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of

Gloucester, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 481, 486 (2009), quoting Davis v.

Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 349, 356 (2001).

4 Section 6.7 of the bylaw establishes the planning board of
Merrimac as the special permit granting authority for the AR
district and sets forth the requirements and criteria for
obtaining a special permit.

5
"We construe the meaning of a bylaw using ordinary

principles of statutory construction, beginning with the plain

language of the bylaw" (quotation and citation omitted).

Williams, 490 Mass. at 693. See Biogen IDEC MA, Inc., v.

Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 454 Mass. 174, 190 (2009)

("Principles governing statutory construction and application

also apply to regulations"). "A basic tenet of statutory

construction requires that a statute be construed so that effect

is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be

inoperative or superfluous" (quotation and citation omitted).

Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699, 704 (2004).

Even assuming that landscaping is a "construction trade"

similar to the business of a painter, carpenter, or electrician,

the undisputed facts in the summary judgment record make it

clear that the plaintiff's landscaping business does not qualify

as a home business workshop because it fails to meet several of

the limitations that apply to all classes of home occupations.

A significant amount of the business is not "situated in the

petitioner's dwelling." The storage of several trucks,

including heavy dump trucks, trailers, and other equipment on

the property is "external evidence" of the business beyond that

permitted in the definition. The business employs "more than

one person other than the resident." Indeed, multiple

nonresident employees regularly come and go during the regular

6
course of conducting the plaintiff's landscaping business on the

property. While the Rezzas argue that the employees spend a de

minimis amount of time on the property at the beginning and end

of each workday, the fact remains the plaintiff employs more

than one person other than himself.5 Simply put, the plaintiff's

business is not a "home" business.

The Rezzas argue that the motion judge's consideration of

the bylaw's limitations on home occupations before a

determination of whether a landscaping business may qualify as a

home business workshop "puts the proverbial Cart before the

horse." We disagree. Proper interpretation of the bylaw

requires treating the cart and the horse as a whole. See

Galenski v. Erving, 471 Mass. 305, 313-314 (2015); Wolfe, 440

Mass. at 704. Proverbially speaking, the plaintiff fails to see

the forest for the trees.

Finally, we discern no merit in the Rezzas' subsidiary

arguments. The plaintiff had adequate notice of the alleged

violation and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, consistent

with his due process rights in a zoning enforcement proceeding.

The record does not support any actionable claim of selective

5 The Rezzas' "de minimis" argument might be considered if
the plaintiff were to apply for a special permit, but he is not
entitled to run a multi-employee business on the property as of
right.

7
prosecution, discrimination, or conflict of interest. "Due

process or equal protection claims are very seldom the means to

seek review of the actions of land use agencies, with the door

only slightly ajar for relief in 'truly horrendous situations'"

(citation omitted). Wyman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Grafton,

47 Mass. App. Ct. 635, 636 (1999). This is not such a

situation.

Judgment affirmed.

Order denying motion for
reconsideration affirmed.

By the Court (Massing, Hand &
Hershfang, JJ.6),

Clerk

Entered: July 22, 2025.

6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

8