ONE LEDGEMONT LLC, v. TOWN OF LEXINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; CAROLYN C. WILSON, MARTHA C. WOOD, DAVID G. WILLIAMS, LEO P. McSWEENEY, and JEANNE K. KRIEGER, as They Are Members of THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS and 95 HAYDEN LLC.

Plaintiff One Ledgemont LLC (“One Ledgemont”) [Note 1] commenced this action on February 12, 2013 as an appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17, of a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Lexington (“Board”), whose members are defendants. The challenged decision (“Decision”) was an approval of defendant 95 Hayden LLC’s application for a special permit with site plan review, and approval of a “Definitive Site Development and Use Plan” (“DSDUP”). The DSDUP followed a Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (“PSDUP”), approved by the Town Meeting on May 4, 2009. The defendant developer, 95 Hayden LLC (“95 Hayden”), has asserted counterclaims for declaratory and other relief.

This case came on to be heard on cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 6, 2013, the court (Piper, J.) in an order (“Summary Judgment Ruling”) issued from the bench and reflected in an entry on the docket dated that day, granted in part summary judgment as reflected in that order. This case then came on for trial to the court (Piper, J.) on issues left unresolved by the Summary Judgment Ruling. In a decision of even date, the court (Piper, J.) has made findings of fact and rulings of law, which, together with the Summary Judgment Ruling, constitute the court’s adjudication of all issues in this case. In accordance with the court’s decision [Note 2] issued today, and the Summary Judgment Ruling, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Decision of the Town of Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals, filed with the Clerk of the Town on January 24, 2013, proceeded on a legally untenable ground and is ANNULLED. It is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED that no easement exists that authorizes 95 Hayden to construct, maintain, or use the fifteen disputed on-grade parking spaces on Parcel A; such an easement was not authorized or established by the 1986 Agreement or any other writing, or in any other legally enforceable manner. It is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED that, consistent with the terms of the 1986 Agreement recorded in the Middlesex County (Southern District) Registry of Deeds (“Registry”) at Book 17502, Page 018, and the August 15, 1986 “Easement Plan of Land” recorded at the Registry as Plan 1456 of Plan Book 1986, the relocation of the roadway easements, utility easements, and associated landscaping, drainage, and support appurtenances, as set forth in the PSDUP, are reasonably convenient to, and do not materially interfere with, the use of Parcels A and B, are a reasonable and permissible relocation under the 1986 Agreement, and One Ledgemont’s consent (where required) to such relocations may not be withheld. It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 95 Hayden is not entitled to recover by way of damages or otherwise on its claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or under G. L. c. 93A, § 11; this Judgment is a final adjudication of all issues in Case No. 13 PS 477585; and no damages, costs, fees, or other amounts are awarded to any party.

By the Court.