RALPH E. GAUDET, as BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF WALTHAM vs. PETER R. MAZZONE, TRUSTEE OF MAZZONE 1995 NOMINEE TRUST, PETER R. MAZZONE, TRUSTEE OF MAZZONE REALTY TRUST, and BARBARA RANDO, MICHAEL J. COTTON, BRUCE MORRIS, MARK A. HICKERNELL and JOHN SERGI, as they are members of the CITY OF WALTHAM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Plaintiff Ralph E. Gaudet, Building Inspector of the City of Waltham, filed his unverified Complaint on July 7, 2006, appealing pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 40A, §17, a decision (“Decision 2”) of Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Waltham (the “ZBA”) which granted a special permit (the “Special Permit”) to Defendant Peter R. Mazzone (“Peter”), Trustee of Mazzone Realty Trust (the “Realty Trust”) to convert a two-family residence located at 111 Woerd Avenue, Waltham, MA (“Locus”) to a multi-family residence. [Note 1] The Nominee Trust and the Realty Trust (together “Defendants”) filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on May 18, 2007, together with supporting brief, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Appendix, and Affidavits of Peter Mazzone, Warren C. Cox, Jr., and Laurel McQuiggan. On June 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Facts, and two Affidavits of Ralph E. Gaudet. Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on June 13, 2007, together with supporting memorandum. On June 18, 2007, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts. The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were heard on June 20, 2007, and taken under advisement. A Decision of today’s date has been rendered.

In accordance with that Decision it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Decision 2 was timely granted.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the two-family use of Locus is a valid nonconforming use.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Section 3.7222 of the Ordinance is not a basis for the grant of the Special Permit.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the three-family use of Locus is a similar use of not less restricted character than the existing two-family use.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the three-family use of Locus complies with the requirements of Section 3.512 of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the three-family use of Locus meets the requirements of G. L. c. 40A, § 6.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBA was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in granting the Special Permit.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

By the court. (Sands, J.)