01.11.2014 Views

FY 2007 - Town of Uxbridge

FY 2007 - Town of Uxbridge

FY 2007 - Town of Uxbridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Cove v. Lobisser Development Corp.<br />

Land Court Case No. 07 MISC 343957<br />

This is an appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 41, §81BB<br />

<strong>of</strong> a decision by <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uxbridge</strong> Planning<br />

Board approving a certain Definitive Subdivision<br />

Plan submitted by the defendants, John Cove<br />

and Lobisser Development Corporation. The<br />

parties have agreed to settle this matter by<br />

deeding 18.4 acres <strong>of</strong> open space to the<br />

Conservation Commission. The Agreement for<br />

Judgment and the Deed are currently being<br />

negotiated by the parties.<br />

Down East Realty, LLC v.<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uxbridge</strong><br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. 2006-2423-A<br />

This is an appeal <strong>of</strong> the Fire Chief’s order denying<br />

the plaintiff’s application for a blasting permit<br />

in connection with the construction <strong>of</strong><br />

water lines for a residential subdivision. The<br />

denial was based on a Board <strong>of</strong> Health<br />

Regulation that places an indefinite moratorium<br />

on blasting within a 3000 foot radius <strong>of</strong> a<br />

hazardous waste release. Discovery is pending.<br />

Fred Hutnak Development v. Planning Board<br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. No. 04-285C<br />

Appeals Court Case No. 2006-P-0897<br />

This is an appeal from the Planning Board’s<br />

decision disapproving a definitive subdivision<br />

plan known as Cornfield Estates located <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong><br />

West Road. The Superior Court entered<br />

Summary Judgment in the <strong>Town</strong>’s favor on<br />

March 21, 2006. The plaintiff appealed to the<br />

Appeals Court. On May 24, <strong>2007</strong>, the Appeals<br />

Court entered a Rule 1:28 Decision vacating the<br />

lower court’s decision and remanding the<br />

matter back to Superior Court for further<br />

consideration.<br />

Norberg v. Planning Board<br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. No. 06-00309-B<br />

This is an appeal <strong>of</strong> the Planning Board’s refusal<br />

to endorse as “approval under the Subdivision<br />

Control Law not required” a plan submitted by<br />

David and Jacqueline Norberg in the fall <strong>of</strong> 2005<br />

concerning land on Landry Lane. This is a<br />

passive defense case in which the Stefanicks will<br />

defend and we will monitor on behalf <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Town</strong>.<br />

Litigation Status Report – October 19, <strong>2007</strong>*<br />

North v. Planning Board / North v. ZBA<br />

Land Court Case No. MISC 268779<br />

(Planning Board)<br />

This is an appeal from the Planning Board’s<br />

denial <strong>of</strong> a definite subdivision plan <strong>of</strong> Rowley<br />

Mill Estates. There has been no action on this<br />

file since the filing <strong>of</strong> the Complaint.<br />

Worcester Superior Court No. 2000-<br />

01847C (ZBA)<br />

This is an appeal from the ZBA’s denial <strong>of</strong> a special<br />

permit for the removal <strong>of</strong> sand and gravel<br />

at Elmsdale Road. In July, 2004 the court<br />

remanded the matter to the ZBA for a new<br />

hearing and decision on a revised application.<br />

<strong>Uxbridge</strong> v. Griff/ Griff v.<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Uxbridge</strong><br />

and ZBA<br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. 01-2487-B<br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. 02-0294-B<br />

These cases involve an action by the <strong>Town</strong> to<br />

enforce an October, 2001 Order that defendant<br />

cease and desist activities at the <strong>Uxbridge</strong> Motor<br />

Sports Park. In September, 2004 the Worcester<br />

Superior Court entered Judgment in favor <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Town</strong>, affirming the case and desist order and<br />

ordering the motor sports park to close. The<br />

plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Court. The<br />

Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s<br />

Decision in favor <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> which closed the<br />

case(s).<br />

The <strong>Town</strong> has filed multiple Complaints for<br />

Contempt against Griff relative to his continued<br />

operation <strong>of</strong> the motor sports park. On October<br />

12, 2006, the Superior Court ruled in favor the<br />

<strong>Town</strong> on its fourth Complaint for Contempt and<br />

awarded attorney’s fees in the amount <strong>of</strong> $5000.<br />

The <strong>Town</strong> then filed an itemization <strong>of</strong> attorney’s<br />

fees, and, after a hearing at the request <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plaintiff, the Court ordered Griff to pay the<br />

<strong>Town</strong> the sum <strong>of</strong> $18,069.48. Griff has appealed<br />

the Court’s Order.<br />

<strong>Uxbridge</strong> v.Tzimogiannis, et. al. (Vecchione)<br />

Worcester Superior Court C.A. 00-2099A<br />

This case involves the <strong>Town</strong>’s zoning and general<br />

by-law enforcement action relative to earth<br />

removal activities conducted by Gary Vecchione<br />

on a 10.2 acre parcel located at 189 Mendon<br />

Street. The <strong>Town</strong>’s Complaint in this action<br />

asserts that the defendants have not obtained<br />

the proper permits for the removal <strong>of</strong> loam on<br />

the property and that the defendants have violated<br />

the <strong>Town</strong> By-laws by permitting the loam<br />

to be removed from the <strong>Town</strong>. After a trial on<br />

April 14, 2006, the Worcester Superior Court<br />

issued a Judgment dated July 3, 2006 finding in<br />

favor <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> as to Count I <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />

Complaint which sough an injunction to prevent<br />

the earth removal in violation <strong>of</strong> the permit<br />

requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s General Earth<br />

Removal By-law. The Court, however, dismissed<br />

Count II <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Complaint, which<br />

sought an injunction to prevent earth removal<br />

in violation <strong>of</strong> the provision <strong>of</strong> Section VII(F) <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>Town</strong>’s Zoning By-law which requires a permit<br />

from the Building Inspector for the removal<br />

<strong>of</strong> earth in an Agricultural District and also<br />

requires that no loam be removed from the<br />

<strong>Town</strong>.<br />

<strong>Uxbridge</strong> Police Association and <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Uxbridge</strong> - Barth Grievance<br />

AAA #11 390 01897 06<br />

This case, filed in September, 2006, is a grievance<br />

by a former police <strong>of</strong>ficer claiming that he<br />

was entitled to additional vacation and sick<br />

leave pay upon his departure from employment<br />

with the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />

Wunschel v. Board <strong>of</strong> Selectmen<br />

Land Court Case No. MISC 316099 - Open<br />

This case involves an abutter’s request for<br />

enforcement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Zoning By-laws relative<br />

to the Carrington Land Condominium<br />

(which consists <strong>of</strong> 50 dwellings in fifteen buildings<br />

on one, undivided lot). The plaintiff,<br />

Wunschel, filed an action in the Land Court<br />

seeking declaration from the Land Court as to<br />

whether or not the then zoning by-law allows<br />

multiple buildings on a single lot in a residential<br />

district. The original suit was filed against<br />

the ZBA and the <strong>Town</strong>, but Carrington Land<br />

Developers and multiple Unit Owners intervened<br />

as defendants. There are two pending<br />

Motions to Dismiss (one by the Developer and<br />

one by the Unit Owners).<br />

*Submitted by Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP, appointed <strong>Town</strong> Counsel in Sept. 07<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!