WILDSTAR FARM, LLC, POLLY KORNBLITH, and MICHAEL NEWMAN vs. ROBERT C. MALSTER, STEVEN H. OLANOFF, STEVEN M. RAFSKY, HENRY W. GALE, and BRUCE H. MONTGOMERY, as they are the members of the TOWN OF WESTWOOD PLANNING BOARD, and the TOWN OF WESTWOOD

Plaintiffs Polly Kornblith and Michael Newman (“Kornblith/Newman”) and Wildstar Farm, LLC (“Wildstar”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed their unverified Complaint on August 4, 2009, appealing, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, and G. L. c. 185, § 3A, a decision of Defendant Town of Westwood Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) relative to Environmental Impact and Design Review (“EIDR”) of Plaintiffs’ project (the “Project”) for the construction of a horse barn, indoor riding arena, and other related amenities at their property located at 401 Sandy Valley Road, Westwood, Massachusetts (“Locus”). [Note 1] Plaintiffs also challenge, pursuant to G. L. c. 240, § 14A, the applicability of Section 7.3 of the Westwood Zoning Bylaw (the “Bylaw”) as it relates to the agricultural use provisions of G. L. c. 40A, § 3 (“Section 3”). A case management conference was held on August 27, 2009. Defendants Town of Westwood (the “Town”) and the Planning Board (together, “Defendants”) filed their Answer on September 28, 2009.

On October 1, 2009, Defendants filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, together with supporting memorandum, alleging that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, thus, this court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, together with supporting memorandum, on October 2, 2009, alleging that Section 7.3 of the Bylaw (the “EIDR Provision”) is not applicable to the Project, and that the Planning Board Decision, as hereinafter defined, is unreasonable. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on October 26, 2009, and Defendants filed their Opposition on December 2, 2009. A hearing was held on the motions on December 23, 2009, at which time both 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 this court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ appeal of the decision of the Planning Board that was filed with the Town Clerk on July 24, 2009 (the “Planning Board Decision”), pursuant to the Permit Session of the Land Court in accordance with G. L. c. 185, § 3A.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the EIDR Provision is facially invalid. [Note 2]

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the fifteen conditions included within the Planning Board Decision (the “Conditions”) are unreasonable in light of the absence of supporting evidence in the record before this court, and, thus, the Conditions are stricken from the Planning Board Decision.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED relative to the Land Court’s jurisdiction over this matter; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED IN PART with respect to the EIDR Provision’s facial invalidity; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is ALLOWED IN PART with respect to the unreasonable Conditions imposed by the Planning Board Decision.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this matter is hereby remanded to the Planning Board to issue a new decision consistent with these findings within forty-five days from the date of this decision.

By the court. (Sands, J.)