James Timmons argued for Brad Watkins that the Neighborhood District zoning and the proposed floor-area-ratio increase will allow a brick classroom wing to occupy the last remaining green open space around Watkins’ house and materially and particularly injure his property and use of his yard. Timmons relied on the Shepherd decision as a close analogue and emphasized aerial photos and neighborhood context to argue Watkins has a particularized, non-speculative grievance.

Kate Carter on behalf of the Neighborhood House Charter Foundation said the extension moves parallel to Watkins’ property but does not reduce the existing side setback and that the board’s expert (Lawrence Spang) provided three-dimensional modeling and shadow analysis that rebutted Watkins’ presumption of standing. Carter argued the project complies with many dimensional regulations (lot area, frontage) and that Watkins’ generalized views and subjective sense of being “boxed in” are insufficient absent specific, credible proof linking the requested variances to a particularized harm.

The panel examined the interaction between FAR relief, setbacks, and massing and asked whether FAR alone can create a cognizable injury or whether the plaintiff must show the relief produced a specific encroachment on his lot or private view. The court also discussed whether the Spang affidavit and shadow modeling adequately rebut the presumption of standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and whether more targeted factual evidence from Watkins was required.

Why it matters: The ruling will affect how courts assess direct-abutter standing in dense urban zoning districts where neighborhood codes limit bulk and preserve open space, and will clarify evidentiary thresholds at the pleadings stage.