This action was filed by James A. Jenkins, individually and as Trustee of the Jenkins Nominee Trust, and by Fred S. Jenkins and Barbara J. Jenkins, as managers of J. A. Jenkins & Son Cranberry Co., LLC. (Collectively Plaintiffs) on February 17, 2009 appealing pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81BB a decision of the Barnstable Planning Board (the Board) dated and filed January 30, 2009 which approved a subdivision plan which had been filed with it by Defendants Peter P. Jenkins, Edwin B. Jenkins and John P. Jenkins.
The case was litigated by the individual parties, the Planning Board having chosen to take a passive stance. The Court entered an Order on October 21, 2009 denying Plaintiffs Special Motion to Dismiss Defendants counterclaim on grounds that it violated the so-called Anti-SLAPP Statute (G. L. c. 231, § 51H). Trial was held at the Land Court in Boston on February 10 and 11, 2011, during which eight witnesses testified and one hundred and one exhibits were introduced into evidence. The testimony was reported. Post-trial briefs were filed between April 19 and May 3, 2011. A Decision has entered this day ruling that the Decision of the Board was erroneous and exceeded its authority, and that it must therefore be annulled. In accordance with that Decision, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants, in challenging the Plaintiffs standing to bring this appeal, did not submit evidence sufficient to challenge Plaintiffs presumption of standing; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that notwithstanding the inadequacy of Defendants challenge, Plaintiffs had standing in any event to bring and prosecute this action because there was a sufficient nexus between their personal interest in the property being subdivided, including the injury and harm which might be caused to them, in particular the adverse effect the subdivision would cause to their operation of their cranberry bogs, and the interests in the wetland areas which the Planning Board was charged with protecting; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties, in spite of their negotiations, had not entered into any final agreement which would preclude Plaintiffs from bringing this action or in any way opposing Defendants proposed subdivision; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Lots 1 and 2 on the subdivision plan which is the subject of this action are not compliant with the Barnstable Zoning By-law because they do not have adequate square footage of contiguous upland to meet the zoning requirements.
By the Court. (Trombly, J.)
[Note 1] All words and phrases employed in this Judgment carry the same definitions as employed in the Decision entered this day.