Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mc clure v epsilon decision
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mc clure v epsilon decision

538

Published on

Judge Piper has ruled in favor of Epsilon and the Town and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. While the Court found that the plaintiff had standing under G.L. c.40A, s.17 regarding a portion …

Judge Piper has ruled in favor of Epsilon and the Town and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. While the Court found that the plaintiff had standing under G.L. c.40A, s.17 regarding a portion of his claims, in all other and in all substantive respects the Court soundly rejected his arguments. I have attached a copy of the Court’s Decision and the Judgment.

In summary, the thirty-three page Decision rules as follows. Regarding the c.40A, s.17 standing issue, Judge Piper found that while the evidence of the potential impact of the Epsilon Group development on the plaintiff’s residential property was “tepid”, the plaintiff had met the minimum necessary to survive a motion to dismiss on that issue alone. See, Decision, pp. 11-12. Judge Piper, however, noted “that many, if not all, of the other grounds for aggrievement Plaintiff asserts are so unsupported and speculative as to be unworthy of consideration.” Decision, p. 12, n.2.

On the other issues that Judge Piper did consider, he rejected the plaintiff’s claims regarding the actions by the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and Building Inspector pertaining to the Epsilon development. Of particular importance is Judge Piper’s ruling regarding the 1978 “Restriction” on the property. The Court, in part relying on the prior decision in the Boar’s Head litigation denying a request for a preliminary injunction, found: “…Plaintiff does not have a legally cognizable right to have the court reach and decide the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that the Epsilon Group project runs afoul of the provisions of the Restriction.” Decision, p. 20. Judge Piper also ruled that the development did not implicate Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Decision, pp. 21-23. Regarding the plaintiff’s appeal under c.40A, s.17 from site plan approval for the project, the Court ruled that while that claim was the only viable claim, “the claim to have the site plan approval modified or annulled by the court fails as a matter of law.“ Decision, p. 29. Finally, Judge Piper ruled that the plaintiff’s “interest in the local processes which led to the determination that the local boards made about the meaning and scope of the Restriction, and its applicability to the Epsilon Group project, is no different or better than that of any other resident or taxpayer in the Town of Chelmsford. He has no statutorily established right to bring this suit.” Decision, p. 31.

Paul Cohen
Chelmsford
Town Manager

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
538
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

×