STEPHEN D. PEABODY vs. EVELYN NOYES, HOWARD TRAISTER, RICHARD SALMONSON and ROBERT WATTS, as they are members of THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF NEWBURY, THE TOWN OF NEWBURY, NEWBURY BUILDING INSPECTOR SAM JOSLIN, DANIEL VAROSKI, and MARY ANN VAROSKI

Plaintiff Stephen D. Peabody filed his unverified complaint on March 24, 2009, appealing, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Newbury Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”) that upheld Defendant Newbury Building Inspector’s (the “Building Inspector”) denial of Plaintiff’s application to enforce a zoning enforcement letter relating to property owned by Defendant Daniel Varoski, individually and as Trustee of the Varoski Family Realty Trust. [Note 1] A case management conference was held on June 15, 2009.

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on October 21, 2009, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Appendix, and Affidavits of Stephen D. Peabody and Julie Pruitt Barry, Esq. On November 23, 2009, the Varoskis filed their Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Additional Facts, Appendix, and Affidavits of Mary Ann Varoski and Michael P. McCarron, Esq. Defendants Town of Newbury, the ZBA and the Building Inspector (“Municipal Defendants”) (together with the Varoskis, “Defendants”) filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on December 4, 2009, together with supporting memorandum. Plaintiff filed his Reply on December 11, 2009, together with Supplemental Affidavit of Stephen D. Peabody, Supplemental Appendix, and Motion to Strike Portions of Affidavit of Mary Ann Varoski. A hearing was held on all motions on April 5, 2010, and all motions were taken under advisement. A decision of today’s date (the “Decision”) has been issued.

In accordance with the Decision, it is:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this court has jurisdiction over this case.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Affidavit of Mary Ann Varoski is stricken in its entirety.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ten-year statute of limitations specified in G. L. c. 40A, § 7, barred any further action to challenge the construction of the Shed (as defined in the Decision) at the latest in January 2005.

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

By the court. (Sands, J.)