Langwood suits tossed out by Superior Judge
Published on April 5th, 2006
STONEHAM, MA - A Middlesex Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit last Wednesday challenging the Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) approval of the Langwood Commons project.
Accepting a motion to dismiss filed by the ZBA and Simpson Housing, LP, the developer of the 450-unit affordable housing proposal, Cambridge Superior Court Judge Nonnie S. Burnes declared that the plaintiffs’ three-count complaint had no legal standing.
Upon learning of the recent decision, various town officials and local attorney Charles Houghton, who represents the petitioners, welcomed the ruling.
However, the project proponents also approached the news with a half-hearted celebration, as they felt that much still needed to be overcome before the Chapter 40B development could break ground.
Currently, the ZBA still faces two other lawsuits challenging the approval, one filed by Ravine Road resident Miriam Regan-Fiore and another by the practicing physicians at the BRMC site. In addition, the developers will have to obtain state permits and permissions from the Mass. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA).
“It’s nice for the town. At least we’ve gotten one step further,” responded retiring Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello.
“You have to realize that this project has been waiting for six years and counting. So the sooner we can get it going, the sooner we can get some revenue,” the Dinanno Road resident added.
Unsure of whether his organization would appeal the legal decision, Friends’ of the Fells Executive Director Mike Ryan believed the recent court ruling represented only a minor defeat for the opponents of the Langwood Commons proposal.
Vowing to continue the fight against the development, the Melrose resident believed the real battle would take place during the state permitting process.
“By no means do I think this was a major setback. It was the loss of a minor skirmish on the state level,” Ryan said.
“I think that’s where the major action is going to be,” the environmental activist added, referring to the continuing EOEA process. “Without those state permits or easement rights, they’re going nowhere.”
Appealing the ZBA’s last September approval of the planned BRMC redevelopment, the Cities of Melrose and Medford, along with the non-profit Friends’ of the Fells organization, alleged that the local board exceeded its authority in granting the comprehensive permit, and had violated the parties’ right to due process on several occasions during the deliberations.
A separate count within the complaint, brought by Melrose, Medford, and ten Massachusetts’ taxpayers, sought an injunction to block the project from moving forward on the grounds that the 40B housing project would irreparably harm the environment.
Ruling that the two neighboring municipalities and the environmental group could not be considered as “persons aggrieved”, Burnes threw out the first count, which accused the ZBA of exceeding its authority.
Specifically, the Superior Court judge labeled the two municipalities as political subdivisions, not as individuals who have the legal right to challenge a local approval on such a basis.
As for the Friends of the Fells, Burnes declared that while a corporate property owner abutting a property does have standing as an “aggrieved person”, the environmental groups’ “occupation” of a nearby building did not fall under such a category.
“We had tried to show that we had a special relationship with the Middlesex Fells. And our hope was that our argument was enough to overcome that statute,” Ryan explained, saying he wasn’t completely shocked by the judge’s interpretation.
On the second count, which charged that the decision would cause irreparable damage to the environment, Burnes ruled that the two cities and ten taxpayers had failed to properly provide a 21-day notice to the state agency responsible for enforcing the violation.
Finding no imminent threat to the surrounding Fells’ Reservation, the judge dismissed the second complaint for failing to meet that notice requirement.
“The Complaint does not contain any allegations of irreparable harm that could occur without judicial intervention at this time...that would warrant any waiver of the notice requirement and issuance of a temporary restraining order,” Burnes wrote.
For the third count, which sought an injunction against future action on the site because of multiple alleged open-meeting law violations, the judge again dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Cities of Melrose and Medford, as well as the Friends of the Fells, could not be considered as a “person aggrieved.”
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!