The Plaintiffs in this action appeal a March 4, 2004 decision of the Town of Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") relative to an application by Defendant Eric Reed for several dimensional variances in connection with his proposed construction of a new single family dwelling on a then-vacant lot located at 68 Bonnie Brier Circle in Hingham, Massachusetts (the "Lot"). Reed was the holder of a purchase and sale agreement for the Lot at the time he sought the variances. The Plaintiffs claim to be abutters, who are aggrieved by the variance decision. They claim that the ZBA exceeded its authority when it (a) determined that a lot size variance was unnecessary, and (b) conditionally granted side yard and front yard setback variances for Reed's proposed new dwelling.
The Plaintiffs' G.L. c. 40A, ยง 17 Complaint was filed on March 19, 2004. Defendant Reed initially filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 28, 2005, supplemented on September 1, 2005 with a Statement of Material Facts in support of said Motion. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, a Response to Reed's Statement of Material Facts, and a Statement of Materials Facts in support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion on September 14, 2005. Reed did not oppose or otherwise respond to the Cross-Motion. For reasons not apparent on the docket, the Summary Judgment Motions were never heard, and the case remained inactive for almost ten years until it was re-assigned to the undersigned judge in 2014.
At a status conference conducted by the court on September 30, 2014, Defendant Reed's counsel reported that his client had never acquired the Lot and, therefore, no longer had an interest in defending the ZBA's decision. In response to the court's inquiry as to whether the matter should be dismissed as moot, counsel for Plaintiffs argued that a dismissal would not satisfy his clients' interest in having the decision of the ZBA annulled, because a dismissal would simply leave the ZBA decision and granted variances in place. At the request of Plaintiffs' counsel, and without objection from Defendant Reed's counsel, the court determined that it would therefore proceed to decide the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the previously filed papers.
By a Decision issued on May 9, 2017, this court determined that the challenged decision exceeded the ZBA's authority, and consequently denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed Plaintiff's unopposed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Now, in accordance with that Decision, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the March 4, 2004 Decision of the Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals is annulled.
SO ORDERED.
SUSANNE M. FALARDEAU, DAVID R. FALARDEAU, and PAUL MANTON v. JERRY K. SEELEN, STEPHEN J. MCLAUGHLIN, MARIO ROMANIA, VICTOR M. BALTERA, ROBERT BERSANI, JAMES M. BORDERICK, and L. BRUCE RABUFFO, as they are Members of the Town of Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals, and ERIC REED.