EVERGREEN DOUGLAS, LLC vs. ADELLE REYNOLDS, as she is the BUILDING COMMISSIONER for the TOWN OF DOUGLAS and TOWN OF DOUGLAS.

Plaintiff Evergreen Douglas, LLC, filed its Verified Complaint on October 24, 2012, seeking, 1) pursuant to G. L. c. 240, § 14A, a determination of its rights under Section 7.2 of the Douglas Zoning By-law (the “By-law”), and 2) pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, a declaratory judgment relative to the legal status of a Flexible Development Special Permit (the “Special Permit”) issued by the Town of Douglas Planning Board (the “Planning Board”) in 2006. Defendants Douglas Building Commissioner (the “Building Commissioner”) and Town of Douglas (the “Town”) (together, “Defendants”) filed their Answer on November 16, 2012. A case management conference was held on December 3, 2012. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 15, 2013, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Appendix containing the Affidavit of Henry J. Lane (the “Lane Affidavit”). On April 18, 2013, Defendants filed their Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with supporting memorandum. Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion of April 30, 2013. A hearing was held on both motions of June 19, 2013, and the matter was taken under advisement. [Note 1] At the hearing Plaintiff filed its Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and on June 24, 2013, with this the court’s permission, Defendants filed their Opposition. A decision of today’s date has been issued (the “Decision”). In accordance with the Decision, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED in this court’s broad discretion, it shall award attorneys fees in the amount of $500 to Plaintiff. Such sum shall be remitted to counsel for Plaintiff within thirty days from the date hereof.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the count in the Complaint pursuant to G.L. c. 240, § 14A shall be dismissed.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff has been denied any administrative route of appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 40A.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that there is an actual controversy between the parties, thus an appeal to this court pursuant to G.L. c. 231A is appropriate.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Special Permit has not lapsed and is still valid.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED IN PART and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ Cross-Motion relative to the G.L. c. 240, § 14A count is ALLOWED (to the extent that the G.L. c. 240, § 14A count was not waived by Plaintiff)..