Home ROGER CAMPBELL vs. ROCKPORT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS and ITS MEMBERS, CHARLES W. CHRISTOPHER, JOYCE P. FOSSA, PETER BERGHOLTZ, JOHN N. REES and LARS-ERIK WIBERG.

MISC 12-472468

December 11, 2013

Sands, J.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed his unverified Complaint on October 22, 2012, pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, appealing a decision of Defendant Rockport Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”) which denied Plaintiff’s application for a variance (the “Variance”) for property located at 38 Jerden’s Lane Extension in Rockport, MA (“Locus”). [Note 1] The ZBA filed its Answer on November 20, 2012. A case management conference was held on November 26, 2012.

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on June 17, 2013, together with supporting memorandum and Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and Affidavit of Vaclav V. Talacko, a registered professional engineer with Hancock Associates, Inc. (the “Talacko Affidavit”). Defendants filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on July 26, 2013, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Additional Material Facts, and Affidavit of Eric Hutchins, a former member of the Rockport Planning Board and the Watershed Protection Committee (the “Hutchins Affidavit”). Plaintiff filed his Response on August 5, 2013. A hearing was held on all motions on August 7, 2013, and the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of today’s date has been issued (the “Decision”). In accordance with the Decision, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the ZBA denying the Variance (the “ZBA Decision”) is not facially invalid for failure to make necessary findings.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate that the soil conditions, shape, or topography of Locus are unique or peculiar.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff has not proven a substantial hardship.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBA was within its authority to deny the Variance on the grounds that the construction of a single-family house, deck, gravel driveway and site grading on Locus will be detrimental to the public good and derogate from the purpose and intent of the Town of Rockport Zoning Bylaw.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.

FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to add the Town of Rockport (the “Town,” and together with the ZBA, “Defendants”) as a Defendant.