|Home Page||Middlesex Superior Court - Complaint|
|Date:||October 24, 1994|
|Case:||Ingraham and Dougherty v. The Board of Appeal|
|Location:||Town of Billerica, Massachusetts|
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-1942 MARGARET B. INGRAHAM, and another,  vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF BILLERICA and others,  FURTHER MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In response to the June 6, 1994, Memorandum of Decision and Order on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the defendant Board of Appeals (board) wrote a letter to its counsel indicating that it apparently did rot think a use variance was required in this case (although the board originally granted a variance). In all the circumstances, I conclude that I cannot grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs. There are substantial issues raised about the proper construction of the zoning bylaw provision which appears to be principally at issue, section ll.C. There are also a number of procedural issues, related to the boards March, 1993 proceedings and to its actions in 1994 upon remand from this court, that both deserve review and raise unresolved factual questions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be DENIED. Dated: October 28, 1994 Margot Botsford Justice of the Superior Court  Joseph M. Dougherty  John F. Gray, Jr.; Doris M. Pearson; Donald J. Flynn; Joseph P. Shaw; Ralph J. McKenna; Michael J. Mulligan, Sr.; Anthony R. Passalaqua; Mary Ann Passalaqua.
Copyright (c) 1998 BillericaNews. All rights reserved.