Plaintiff filed its unverified Complaint in 08 MISC 382919 on August 22, 2008, appealing, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Planning Board of the City of Cambridge (the Planning Board) which denied Plaintiffs application for two special permits. A case management conference was held on December 8, 2008, at which Plaintiff indicated that it would file another Complaint relative to the validity of a section of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (the Ordinance). On April 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed its unverified Complaint in 09 MISC 397886, challenging the validity of provisions of the Ordinance related to the dimensional requirements of usable open space. On April 21, 2009, this court allowed a motion to consolidate the two cases. Defendant City of Cambridge (the City) (together with the Planning Board, Defendants) filed an Answer to the second Complaint on April 29, 2009.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on September 9, 2009, together with supporting memorandum, Index and Affidavits of Daniel C. Orwig and Shana E. Maldonado, Esq. On October 9, 2009, Defendants filed their Opposition, together with supporting memorandum and Appendix. A hearing was held on the summary judgment motion on November 9, 2009, at which time the motion was taken under advisement. A decision of todays date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Section 5.22.1 of the Ordinance does not violate the uniformity provision of G. L. c. 40A, § 4, and, thus, does not constitute a denial of Plaintiffs right to equal protection under the United States Constitution and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Section 5.22.1 of the Ordinance bears a rational relation to a legitimate zoning purpose.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the term superior site design in Section 11.15.5 of the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the July 15, 2008 decision of the Planning Board in which the Planning Board denied Plaintiffs application for special permits under Sections 11.12.2 and 11.15.5 of the Ordinance was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
By the court. (Sands, J.)
Deborah J. Patterson
Dated: September 16, 2010