On January 25, 2007, defendant Cape Cod Commission (Commission), pursuant to St. 1989, c. 716, and regulations promulgated thereunder, issued a written decision (DRI Decision) approving the Barnstable Municipal Airport Expansion Project, Project No. ENF20009 and DRI/EIR-06011, as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The DRI Decision was recorded with the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds at Book 22218, Page 58, and in the Barnstable Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 1,069,769. These consolidated cases concern appeals taken from subsequent decisions of the Commission granting requests for modifications to the DRI Decision.
In Land Court Miscellaneous Case No.10 MISC 432357 (GHP), plaintiff Botsini-Prime, LLC (Botsini) challenges the May 25, 2010 decision of the Commission granting the defendant Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission (Airport) a Minor Modification Type #2to the approved Airport Expansion Project.
In Land Court Miscellaneous Case No.10 MISC 434939 (GHP), Botsini challenges a June 24, 2010 decision of the Commission granting the defendant Airport a Major Modification to the approved Airport Expansion Project.
In Barnstable Superior Court Case No. BACV2011-00310, Botsini alleges a breach of a certain Memorandum of Understanding executed by Botsini, the Airport, and the Commission on or about July 3, 2007.
These cases came on to be tried to the court (Piper, J.) over the course of four days in March, 2011. In a decision of even date, the court has made findings of fact and rulings of law, and has decided that judgment is to enter in Botsinis appeals in the Land Court cases upholding the Commissions decisions, and that in the Superior Court Case, judgment is to enter in favor of the defendants on the breach of contract claim.
In accordance with the courts decision issued today, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decisions of the Commission challenged in Land Court Miscellaneous Case Nos. 10 MISC 432357 (GHP) and 10 MISC 434939 (GHP) are not beyond the scope of authority of the Commission; are not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or contrary to law; and are not legally entitled to be modified or annulled. It is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judgment hereby enter in favor of Defendants in Case No. BACV2011-00310, the court finding no breach of the Memorandum of Understanding by Defendants.