PETER HALLOCK, EDWIN J. DEADRICK, and MARY ANNE HALL DEADRICK [Note 1] vs. CHATHAM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, ROBERT JEFFREY CHANDLER, and JAYNE KERRY CHANDLER

Plaintiffs filed their unverified Complaint on December 31, 2007, appealing pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17 a decision of Defendant Town of Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”) which granted a special permit (the “Special Permit”) to Defendants Robert Jeffrey Chandler and Jayne Kerry Chandler (the “Chandlers”). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on January 3, 2008, correcting a factual issue. After this court allowed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint, a Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 5, 2008, which added a count under G. L. c. 240, § 14A, challenging the interpretation of Section V.B (“Section V.B”) and Section IV.A.3 (“Section IV.A.3”) of the Town of Chatham (the “Town”) Zoning By-law (the “By-law”). A case management conference was held on March 5, 2008. The Chandlers filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2008. The ZBA filed its Answer to Second Amended Complaint on March 27, 2008.

The Chandlers filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on May 16, 2008, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Undisputed Facts, Appendix, and Affidavit of David P. Handren (“Handren”). On June 19, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Strike Designated Portions of Affidavit of David P. Handren, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum, Affidavits of Peter Hallock, William J. McGovern, Edwin J. Deadrick, David A. Clark, P. E., Theodore P. Steibert, A. I. A., and Peter S. Farber. [Note 2] The Chandlers filed a Reply on July 2, 2008. A hearing was held on all motions on August 18, 2008, at which time all motions were taken under advisement. Subsequently, and with leave from this court, the Chandlers filed a Supplemental Brief on August 25, 2008, and Plaintiffs filed a Further Memorandum on September 8, 2008, both relative to the application of G. L. c. 240, § 14A to the case at bar. A decision of today’s date has been issued.

In accordance with that decision it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Handren Affidavit is DENIED IN PART.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs have a presumption of standing pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 11.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Special Permit based on allegations of diminution of private views, as such claims are speculative and do not involve a protected interest under the By-law.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Hallock lacks standing to challenge the Special Permit based on allegations of diminution in open space, privacy, and neighborhood character as Hallock fails to provide credible evidence of particularized harm.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Special Permit based on allegations of diminution in value as the Affidavit of William J. McGovern fails to provide credible evidence of particularized harm.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs do not have independent standing to challenge the Special Permit pursuant to G. L. c. 240, § 14A.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the Chandlers’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.

By the court. (Sands, J.)