1,239,544 @ 11:39 am
caraviello loses in another court case
http://masscases.com/cases/land/2018/2018-16-000364-MEMO%20&%20ORDER.html
FREDERICK DELLO RUSSO JR., BREANNA LUNGO-KOEHN, RICHARD CARAVIELLO, JOHN FALCO JR., ADAM KNIGHT, MICHAEL MARKS and GEORGE SCARPELLI as members of the MEDFORD CITY COUNCIL v. ANTHONY ARENA, MAUREEN TARDELLI, FRANCIS SULLIVAN, SCOTT CARMAN and YVETTE CLAUDIA VELEZ as members of the MEDFORD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, [Note 1] and EQUITY ONE (NORTH-EAST PORTFOLIO) INC.
MISC 16-000364
January 5, 2018
Middlesex, ss.
LONG, J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Introduction
By decision filed with the Medford City Clerk on June 14, 2016, subject to linkage fees and a series of conditions recommended by Medford's Director of Public Health, City Engineer, Community Development Board, Building Commissioner, Office of Community Development, and Fire Department (all of which, as well as the Mystic River Watershed Association, were either in favor of the project as conditioned or had no objection to it), the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously granted variances and a site plan special permit to a project proposed by defendant Equity One (Northeast Portfolio) Inc. for the re-development of a 6.8 acre site, industrially-zoned, at 61 Locust Street in downtown Medford. The site is abutted to the east by the Meadow Glen Mall; to the south and west by an ice rink, residential apartment buildings, Hormel Stadium, and parking lots; and to the north by a contractor's yard and apartment buildings further down Locust Street and residences along Cummings Street, which dead-ends, and will continue to dead-end, at the boundary of the site. The proposed re-development involves the demolition of two existing buildings - a vacant former Shaw's Supermarket and a small branch bank [Note 2] - and the construction of three new mixed-use buildings containing 490 residential units (10% of which will be reserved for moderate and middle income households) and 7,000 square feet of commercial space, 3,000 of which will be occupied by the re-located bank.
This action, brought by the Medford City Council, is one of four that were filed in opposition to the project. [Note 3] All of the others have been dismissed by stipulation, with prejudice. Although this case - the only remaining one - was brought in a single count, it makes two analytically-separate contentions, each alleged as a basis to vacate the Board's decision.
The first is a contention that the Zoning Board violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§18-25, and that the proper remedy should be the vacating of the project approval, presumably with a remand. Whatever the merits of that claim, this court has no jurisdiction to hear it. Open Meeting Law claims can only be brought in the Superior Court, and then only by the Attorney General or three or more registered voters. See G.L. c. 30A, §23(f). This is the Land Court, not the Superior Court, and the plaintiffs brought their claims in their capacity as members of the City Council, not as voters. The Open Meeting Law claim must therefore be DISMISSED.
