Home SCOTLAND YARD LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP vs. UXBRIDGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, and THOMAS BENTLEY, BRUCE DESILETS, and MARK WICKSTROM, as members of the UXBRIDGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, and CHARLES LUTTON, associate member of the Zoning Board of Appeals

MISC 08-377478

July 8, 2010

Sands, J.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed its unverified Complaint on April 11, 2008, appealing pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Uxbridge Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 25, 2008 (the “ZBA Decision”) which upheld the decision (the “Denial”) of the Uxbridge Building Inspector (the “Building Inspector”) denying Plaintiff’s application for a building permit for Locus, as defined in the Land Court Decision. A case management conference was held on June 26, 2008.

Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 27, 2009, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Affidavits of Donald Seaberg (engineer) and Jeffrey Roelofs, Esq. Defendant filed its Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on May 6, 2009, together with supporting memorandum and Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts. A hearing was held on both motions on September 16, 2009, at which time both motions were taken under advisement. A decision of today’s date (the “Land Court Decision”) has been issued.

In accordance with that decision it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that a common driveway is a permitted use under the 2004 Uxbridge Zoning Bylaw (the “2004 Bylaw”).

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Driveway B on Locus is not subject to setback requirements under the 2004 Bylaw.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBA Decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and beyond the scope of authority of Defendant.

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

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, given that the sole basis of the ZBA Decision and the Denial related to whether Driveway B was allowed on Locus under the 2004 Bylaw, and in light of this court’s conclusion that such driveway is not prohibited by the 2004 Bylaw, the Building Inspector is to issue a building permit with respect to the eight-unit residential building on Locus that Plaintiff applied for in September 2007.

By the court. (Sands, J.)