SARAH FARRINGTON, JOHN FARRINGTON, PETER LANG and KATHERINE LAPIERRE vs. CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION; WILLIAM B. KING, BRUCE IRVING, M. WYLLIS BIBBINS, ROBERT G. CROCKER, CHANDRA HARRINGTON, FRANK SHIRLEY, JO M. SOLET, SHARY BERG, JOSEPH V. FERRARA and SUSANNAH BARTON TOBIN, as they are members or alternates of the CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION; and LESLEY UNIVERSITY

Plaintiffs filed their unverified Complaint (the “Historical Commission Case”) with the Middlesex Superior Court (MICV 2011-00698) on March 4, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 40C, § 12A, appealing a decision of Defendant Cambridge Historical Commission (the “Historical Commission”) which issued a Certificate of Appropriateness (the “Certificate”) to Defendant Lesley University (“Lesley”) relative to the moving of the North Prospect Congregational Church (the “Church”) to the back of an adjoining vacant lot, lowering the Church approximately five feet to ground level and removing its steeple, the construction of a building for the Art Institute of Boston (“AIB”) on the former Church site and connecting the new building (the “AIB Building”) to the Church by a glass atrium (the “Glass Connector”) (collectively, the “Project”). Both Lesley and the Historical Commission filed their Answers on March 28, 2011. By Order dated March 31, 2011, this case was transferred to the Permit Session of the Land Court (11 PS 448568). A case management conference was held on June 29, 2011.

On April 5, 2011, this court issued a decision in a related case, Farrington v. City of Cambridge, 09 MISC 406520, which held that (1) the City of Cambridge (the “City”) did not engage in spot zoning by enacting a zoning amendment (the “Zoning Amendment”) that extended the Business C District to include the Church Lots (defined infra) and created the Lesley Porter Overlay District (the “LP Overlay District”); (2) the Zoning Amendment did not constitute illegal contract zoning; (3) the Zoning Amendment did not violate the City’s Institutional Overlay District Regulations; (4) the Zoning Amendment did not violate the City’s Massachusetts Avenue Overlay District Regulations and the City did not improperly use the overlay district procedure in enacting the Zoning Amendment; (5) the legislative act permitting the transfer of gross floor area (“GFA”) amongst lots permissibly amends, and does not violate, the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”); and (6) there were no procedural defects in adopting the Zoning Amendment. [Note 1]

Plaintiffs filed their unverified Complaint (the “Planning Board Case”) with the Middlesex Superior Court (MICV2011-01510) on May 3, 2011, appealing pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a decision of Defendant Cambridge Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) that granted special permits (the “Special Permits”) to Lesley relative to the Project. Lesley filed its Answer on May 20, 2011. By Order dated June 13, 2011, this case was transferred to the Permit Session of the Land Court (11 PS 453301). A case management conference was held on November 1, 2011.

The Historical Commission and Lesley filed their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment in the Historical Commission Case on September 30, 2011, together with supporting memorandum and Statement of Facts. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in the Historical Commission Case on October 17, 2011, together with supporting memorandum, and Affidavits of Sarah Farrington, Peter Lang and Thomas Bracken, Esq. On November 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Lesley and the Historical Commission filed a joint Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On November 22, 2011, the parties filed their Replies.

Lesley and the Planning Board filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in the Planning Board Case on December 12, 2011, together with supporting memorandum and Statement of Facts. On January 9, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in the Planning Board Case, together with supporting memorandum and Supplemental Affidavit of Thomas Bracken, Esq. On the same day, Lesley and the Planning Board filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, together with Affidavit of Michael K. Murray, Esq. On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Response to the Opposition, together with the Third Declaration of Simeon Bruner. On the same day, Lesley and the Planning Board filed their Reply. A hearing was held on all motions in both cases on January 27, 2012, and the matter was 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 pursuant to G L. c. 185, § 3A, Plaintiffs have standing in the Historical Commission case.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Historical Commission’s Final Landmark Designation Study Report dated June 10, 2009 (the “Landmark Study”) did not bind or limit the Historical Commission’s authority in issuing the Certificate and that in any event, the Certificate was not inconsistent with the Landmark Study’s guidelines.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Certificate does not fail to address the considerations in Chapter 2.78.220 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Certificate does not violate Sections 4.50 and 4.55 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”).

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Historical Commission did not effectively rescind or amend the Cambridge City Council’s Landmark Designation Order dated June 22, 2009.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Certificate is valid and that the Historical Commission’s action in issuing the Certificate was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or in excess of its authority.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that in the Historical Commission Case, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that that the Special Permits are not contrary to § 20.505(3) of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are not contrary to § 20.505(4) of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are not contrary to § 20.505(9) of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are not contrary to § 20.505(10) of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are not contrary to the Urban Design Objectives listed in §§ 19.30 - 19.37 of the Ordinance, and that the Planning Board correctly found that the Lesley had complied with the Urban Design Objectives, including § 19.33 of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are not contrary to § 10.43(d) of the Ordinance.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Conditions 2, 4 and 6 of the Special Permits are valid and enforceable.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permits are valid and that the Planning Board’s action in issuing the Special Permits was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or in excess of its authority. ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, in the Planning Board Case, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.

By the court. (Sands, J.)