Plaintiffs filed their unverified Complaint on December 5, 2007, appealing a decision of Defendant Sutton Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) which granted a dimensional variance (the Variance) to Defendants Roseanne LaBarre and John Scott (LaBarre/Scott). A case management conference was held on February 26, 2008. LaBarre/Scott filed their Answer on March 5, 2008.
On July 17, 2008, LaBarre/Scott filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum and Appendix, including Affidavits of Maria Hopkins (licensed appraiser) and Roseanne LaBarre (first), and portions of depositions of Robert E. Marhefka and Roseanne LaBarre. The ZBA filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 28, 2008, relying on LaBarre/Scotts memorandum. On August 14, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to LaBarre/Scotts motion and the ZBAs motion, together with supporting brief and Appendix, including Affidavits of Robert E. Marhefka (first) and Robert D. ONeil, Jr. (professional land surveyor), appraisal of Robert Tolland, and a portion of the deposition of Robert E. Marhefka. LaBarre/Scott filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs motion and their Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition on September 17, 2008, together with Appendix, including the Affidavit of Roseanne LaBarre (second). On September 25, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief to LaBarre/Scotts Opposition, together with Affidavits of Robert E. Marhefka (second). On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their Reply to Plaintiffs Statement of Facts. A hearing was held on all motions on October 6, 2008, at which time all motions were taken under advisement. A decision of todays date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that views are not a protected interest under the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Sutton (the Bylaw).
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that because the alleged harm of diminution of value is directly tied to views, which themselves are not a protected interest under the Bylaw, the allegation of diminution of value is inadequate to confer standing upon Plaintiffs. [Note 1]
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and LaBarre/Scotts and the ZBAs Motions for Summary Judgment are ALLOWED.
By the court. (Sands, J.)
[Note 1] Plaintiffs argue that there are material facts at issue relative to whether their view is impacted as a result of the Variance. Because of this courts finding, supra, that water views are not a protected property right under the Bylaw, any such disputed facts are irrelevant.