MAURA A. NOCE and JON A. NOCE vs. MAURICE G. McGUIRE, WILLIAM F. SMITH, ROBERT P. PISTONE, SR., LEONARD A. DOUGLAS, VINCENT M. KISSELL and GEORGE MORIARTY, as they are members and associate members of and constitute the BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF HAVERHILL, RICHARD OSBORNE, as he is the BUILDING INSPECTOR and ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF HAVERHILL, and JASON STANICHUK, as Trustee of RICKY C. JUNIOR REALTY TRUST

Plaintiffs filed their unverified Complaint on March 10, 2006, appealing pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Haverhill Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") which denied Plaintiffs' appeal of the inaction of Defendant Richard Osborne, Haverhill Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer ("Building Inspector") to enforce the Haverhill Zoning Ordinances (the "Ordinance") with respect to the construction of a single-family residence on property owned by Defendant Jason Stanichuk, as Trustee of Ricky C. Junior Realty Trust (the "Trust"). On April 6, 2006, the Trust filed its Answer, and on April 25, 2006, the ZBA and the Building Inspector filed their Answer.

The Trust filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 6, 2007, together with supporting brief, Statement of Material Facts, Appendix, and Affidavit of Stephen J. Corcoran, Esq., and portions of transcripts of Jon Noce ("Noce") and Maura Noce. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting brief, Appendix, and Affidavits of Jon A. Noce, Philip G. Christiansen, P.E. and Frank A. Smith, Jr. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on May 8, 2007, and the Trust filed its Opposition on May 10, 2007, together with Affidavits of Robert A. Masys, P.E. and Richard Osborne. On May 31, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Reply brief, together with Affidavits of David Hewey, Benjamin Nutter, and Maura A. Noce, and the Trust filed its Reply brief. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a View on June 11, 2007. A hearing was held on all motions on June 20, 2007, and all motions were taken under advisement. A decision of today's date has been issued.

In accordance with that Decision it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs have standing relative to alleged harms based on drainage and natural light.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this court has jurisdiction over the matter.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that claim preclusion is not applicable to the letter dated December 19, 2000 from Robert Dill (Building Inspector at the time) to Philip A. Parry, Esq. (attorney for Plaintiffs) (the "Dill Letter").

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that claim preclusion is not applicable to the ZBA's decision dated August 18, 2004 ("ZBA Decision 1").

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that issue preclusion is not applicable in this matter.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that in not appealing the Dill Letter, Plaintiffs did not lose their rights to appeal the issuance of the foundation permit (issued by the Building Inspector on March 31, 2004).

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that there is no merit in the Trust's argument that the ZBA decision dated February 15, 2006 ("ZBA Decision 2") was a repetitive application.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBA exceeded its authority in finding that Locus is grandfathered and authorizing a building permit for Locus.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that laches is not applicable to the case at bar.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED and the Trust's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

By the court. (Sands, J.)