Plaintiff, Steven Dalkouras, filed his unverified complaint on June 17, 2004, appealing the decision of Defendants, Brockton Zoning Board of Appeals (the ZBA), pursuant to G. L. c. 40A § 17, which upheld the City of Brockton Building Departments (the Building Department) determination that the lot at issue (Lot 73), located on Prince Street in Brockton, MA, is not a buildable lot. The ZBA filed its Answer on July 2, 2004. On August 2, 2011, the ZBA filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum and a Statement of Undisputed Facts, together with affidavits of James M. Burke (the ZBAs attorney), Paul J. Sullivan (current Assessor for the City of Brockton), and James Casieri (current Superintendent of Buildings for the City of Brockton). On August 3, 2011 Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with affidavits of John F. Johnson (Brockton City Council member in 1967when the zoning ordinance at issue was adopted), Carl Landerholm (former Superintendent of Buildings for the City of Brockton), David Tonis (former Superintendent of Buildings for the City of Brockton), and John Dorgan (former Building Inspector and former Superintendent of Buildings for the City of Brockton). On September 19, 2011, both motions were heard at the Land Court in Boston and the matter taken under advisement. A decision of todays date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision, it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, who filed his own Legal Use & Buildable Lot Request Form and received his own determination issued by the Building Department, is not bound by the lack of an appeal by Charles W. Reed, Jr. And Carol A. Reed [who filed a Legal Use & Buildable Lot Request Form with the Building Department in 1998 and received a negative opinion as to the buildability of Lot 73].
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Lot 73 is a buildable lot [pursuant to § 27-12 of the Brockton Zoning Ordinance], and the decision of the ZBA to the contrary exceeded its authority.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBAs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Plaintiffs Cross-motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.
By the court. (Sands, J.)