MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL 22 WATER STREET PROJECT OWNER, LLC, v. CONSTANTINE ALEXANDER, et al., as they are members of the City of Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal.

In this action, plaintiff Monogram Residential 22 Water Street Project Owner, LLC (“Monogram”) appealed a decision of defendant City of Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal (the “BZA”), filed with the City Clerk on September 29, 2016. This matter came before this Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. In accordance with this Court’s Decision this same date, in light of the undisputed facts and arguments of counsel, this Court DENIES Monogram’s motion for summary judgment, but ALLOWS the BZA’s motion for summary judgment only in part. The Court thus

ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that:

A. Condition #1 of the June 15, 2010 decision of the Planning Board of the City of Cambridge, recorded at the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds in Book 55117, Page 253 (the “2010 Decision”), prohibits the installation and operation of “up lighting [and] other lighting of the screens or roof of the building” at 22 Water Street in Cambridge, MA;

B. Monogram’s installation and operation of such lights is not in substantial conformance with the twice-amended Final Development Plan identified in the 2010 Decision; and

C. Monogram has not received approval under the 2010 Decision or the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to install and operate such lights.

It is further ORDERED that any order of the City’s Building Commissioner directing Monogram to remove lights from the roof of 22 Water Street is hereby VACATED.

It is further ORDERED that, if Monogram wishes to keep in place any “up lighting or other lighting of the screens or roof of the building” already installed at 22 Water Street, Monogram must file within 60 days of the entry of this Judgment all applications required to keep such lighting in place. Should Monogram not file within 60 days of entry of this Judgment all applications required to keep such lighting in place, the Commissioner may take lawful enforcement action against Monogram, including but not limited to requesting an order to have Monogram show cause why it should not be held in contempt.

It is further ORDERED that, until such time that Monogram receives a final, unappealable permit allowing it to operate “up lighting or other lighting of the screens or roof of the building” at 22 Water Street, Monogram shall not operate such lights there.

SO ORDERED.