CHARLES BROOKS, and GUY FARETRA and CRAIG D. FARETRA, as TRUSTEES OF C&G REALTY TRUST vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, JOHN BLAKE, JR., EILEEN DUFFY, JOHN COPPINGER, LEONARD RICHARDS, JR., WILLIAM J. GILET, SR., and JOEL LUNA, in their capacity as members of THE CHELMSFORD BOARD OF APPEALS, and CHELMSFORD HILLSIDE GARDENS, LLC

Plaintiffs Charles Brooks (“Brooks”) and Guy Faretra and Craig D. Faretra, as Trustees of C&G Realty Trust (the “Trust”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed their unverified Complaint on October 20, 2008, appealing pursuant to G. L. c. 40B, § 21 a decision of Defendant Board of Appeals of the Town of Chelmsford (the “ZBA”) approving a comprehensive permit (the “Comprehensive Permit”) issued to Defendant Chelmsford Hillside Gardens, LLC (“Hillside Gardens”). Hillside Gardens filed its Answer on November 7, 2008. A case management conference was held on December 15, 2008. [Note 1] Hillside Gardens filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on April 15, 2009, together with supporting memorandum and Affidavit of Charles Emanouil. On April 21, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition. A status conference was held on April 24, 2009, at which this matter was scheduled for trial. A pre-trial conference was held on July 29, 2009. A site view and the first day of trial at the Radisson Hotel in Chelmsford, Massachusetts were held on October 26, 2009. At the completion of Hillside Gardens’ case, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Directed Finding, which this court denied. Hillside Gardens filed Proposed Findings of Fact on the same day. The second day of trial was held at the Land Court in Boston on October 27, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their Post Trial Brief on January 25, 2010, and Hillside Gardens filed their Post Trial Memoranda on February 4, 2010, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of today’s date has been issued.

In accordance with that decision it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that neither Brooks nor the Trust has standing to challenge the Comprehensive Permit. Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction to address the issues pertaining to the validity of the Comprehensive Permit or the issues relative to whether the Comprehensive Permit was arbitrary or unreasonable.

By the court. (Sands, J.)