WOBURN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS v. HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE of the DEPARTMENT of HOUSING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; CIRSAN REALTY TRUST, and WOBURN 38 DEVELOPMENT, LLC.

This action, which commenced in the Land Court on July 28, 2015 by transfer from the Superior Court pursuant to an Order of Transfer by the Chief Administrative Justice of the Trial Court, is an appeal of a decision of the Housing Appeals Committee of the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HAC”), filed pursuant to G. L. c. 40B, §22, in which the plaintiff Woburn Zoning Board of Appeals seeks a judgment annulling the “Decision on Project Change” issued by the HAC and dated April 23, 2015 (“Decision”), with respect to a comprehensive permit issued for development of property at 1042 Main Street, Woburn (“Property”).

This case came on for hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the defendants’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. In a decision of even date, the court (Speicher, J.) has determined that judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants.

In accordance with the court’s decision, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the HAC’s finding in the Decision that the project as proposed to be modified was significantly less uneconomic than the project as originally approved, including its selection of the date from which the Return on Total Cost was to be measured, the use of a developer’s fee as an element of costs, and the HAC’s acceptance of the developer’s expert testimony with respect to project costs, was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, was legally tenable and was otherwise within the proper exercise of the HAC’s authority.

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the HAC’s ruling in the Decision that the developer did not have the burden of proof to make out a prima facie case that the project, as proposed to be modified, would comply with state and federal regulations, was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, was legally tenable and was otherwise within the proper exercise of the HAC’s authority.

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the HAC’s ruling in the Decision that it did not have jurisdiction to require that the developer show at the hearing before the HAC that the project, as proposed to be modified, would comply with state and federal regulations relating to noise, dust and vibration, was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, was legally tenable and was otherwise within the proper exercise of the HAC’s authority.

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, accordingly, that the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, the defendants’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are ALLOWED, and the Decision of the HAC is AFFIRMED.

It is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this Judgment is a full adjudication of all the parties’ claims in this case, and all prayers for relief by any party in this action which are not granted in the preceding paragraphs are DENIED.

It is further

ORDERED that no costs, fees, damages, or other amounts are awarded to any party.

By the Court.