JUNE M. LYDON, as TRUSTEE OF THE LYDON FAMILY TRUST vs. TOWN OF MILTON BOARD OF APPEALS, EMANUEL ALVES, VIRGINIA DONAHUE KING, and SARA HARNISH, as they are members of the BOARD, and THOMAS COULTER
Sands, J.
Plaintiff filed its unverified complaint on April 30, 2009, appealing, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Town of Milton Board of Appeals (the ZBA) which granted a use variance and a special permit to Defendant Thomas Coulter (Coulter) (together with the ZBA, Defendants) pertaining to property located at 919 Blue Hill Avenue in Milton, Massachusetts (Locus). A case management conference was held on July 1, 2009. At a hearing held on February 19, 2010, this court allowed Defendants Motion to Remand the matter back to the ZBA, and issued its Order for Remand to the Milton Board of Appeals. On April 15, 2010, the ZBA issued its remand decision; on May 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, appealing the remand decision of the ZBA.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 14, 2010, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Material Facts, and Appendix including Affidavits of Matthew J. Dunn, Esq. and Frederick Lydon. On June 14, 2010, the ZBA filed its Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Additional Material Facts, and Appendix including Affidavits of William B. Clark, Jr., Frederick G. Barry, Jr., Esquire, and Diane Colligan. Coulter filed his support of the ZBAs Cross-Motion on June 16, 2010. Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply on July 14, 2010. A hearing was held on all motions on August 30, 2010, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of todays date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the decision of the ZBA dated April 21, 2009 (issuing a special permit) and the decision of the ZBA dated April 15, 2010 (issuing a variance).
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.
By the court. (Sands, J.)