Source: http://masscases.com/cases/land/17/17lcr592a.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 13:51:03
Document Index: 21691106

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§26', '§ 1', '§ 14', '§ 3', '§ 3']

BRENDA L. COGGIN v. CITY OF WESTFIELD, DONALD YORK as the Superintendent of Buildings for the
MISC 04-303152 September 25, 2009
With: MISC 04-299303 : BRENDA L. COGGIN v. CITY OF WESTFIELD and DONALD YORK as the Superintendent of Buildings for the CITY OF WESTFIELD Plaintiff Brenda L. Coggin filed an unverified Complaint with the Hampden County Housing Court (the "Housing Court Case") on July 15, 2003, pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17, appealing a decision ("ZBA Decision 2") of Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA") filed with the City of Westfield (the "City") Clerk on June 26, 2003, which affirmed an order issued by Defendant Superintendent of Buildings, Donald York ("York") (together with the ZBA, the "Housing Court Defendants"), to cease and desist excavation of earth materials at 1008 Granville Road, Westfield, MA ("Locus"). [Note 1] On October 20, 2004, the Hampden County Housing Court (Fein, J.) allowed Plaintiff's Application to Remove Action to Land Court Pursuant to G.L. Ch. 212 §26A, and the Housing Court Case was transferred to this court as 04 MISC 303152 on October 27, 2004.
On June 23, 2004, Plaintiff and Denis P. Coggin [Note 2] filed an unverified Complaint in this court (04 MISC 299903, the "Land Court Case") pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, § 1 and G.L. c. 240, § 14A, seeking a declaratory judgment and challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Defendant City of Westfield's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") as applied to Locus. With respect to the Land Court Case, Plaintiff contends that the following sections of the Ordinance are illegal and null and void as applied to Locus: Article III, Section 3-40.4(9) ("Section 3-40.4(9)"); Article IV, Section 4-140; Article V, Section 5-10 ("Section 5-10"); Article V, Section 5-20 ("Section 5-20"); and Article VI, Section 6-10. [Note 3] Defendants in this case, the City and York (together, the "Land Court Defendants") (together with the Housing Court Defendants, "Defendants"), filed a Motion to Dismiss the Land Court Case due to the pendency of the Housing Court Case on August 2, 2004.
At the trial, testimony was given by Plaintiff's witnesses Brenda Lee Coggin (Plaintiff), David Deveno (excavator), Scott Brian Perry (excavator), and Defendants' witnesses Barbara Webster James (neighbor), Karen Lynn Curran (neighbor), Lawrence Friedman (neighbor), Mark Cressotti (City Engineer), Mark Noonan (member of the Conservation Commission of Westfield and former City Planner), George Martin (abutter to Westfield conservation land which abuts Locus), and James Stuart Parker (abutter to Westfield conservation land which abuts Locus). There were forty-two exhibits submitted, some in multiple parts. On March 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed her Memorandum of Law and Defendants filed their Post-Trail Memorandum, at which time the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of today's date has been issued.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the ZBA dated June 6, 2007 ("ZBA Decision 4"), filed with the City Clerk on June 18, 2007, that overturned the third section of the Second Cease and Desist Order is admissible.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's current riding academy is a primary agricultural use protected from Section 3-40.4(9)'s special permit requirement by G.L. c. 40A, § 3.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Planning Board Decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable in requiring Plaintiff to obtain a special permit for her current riding academy use pursuant to Section 3-40.4(9). [Note 5] ORDERED and ADJUDGED that even if Plaintiff's current riding academy is not a primary agricultural use, I find that it is an incidental use to an agricultural use and, therefore, protected by the agricultural exemption in G.L. c. 40A, § 3.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the excavation in the proposal shown on "Plan Showing Proposed Agricultural Development" (the "Redesigned Proposal") for Coggin Creek Stables, prepared by David L. Bean of D.L.Bean, Inc. and dated April 1, 2005, is neither minor nor subordinate to the operation of the horse farm, and, thus, is not an incidental use to a protected agricultural use.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the ZBA acted within the scope of its authority in upholding ZBA Decision 2 and in rejecting Plaintiff's Redesigned Proposal revised excavation proposal (ZBA Decision 3), and their decisions are hereby affirmed. [Note 6] ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the excavation portion of the Redesigned Proposal is not protected from special permit/site plan review.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Section 5-10 and Section 5-20 are valid as applied to the Redesigned Proposal.
[Note 1] Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 27, 2006, to reflect an appeal of ZBA Decision 3, as hereinafter defined. Plaintiff and Denis P. Coggin filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 9, 2007, to reflect an appeal of the Planning Board Decision, as hereinafter defined. [Note 2] Brenda and Denis Coggin divorced sometime after filing the Complaint, after which, Plaintiff took title to Locus as the sole owner of record. On February 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Strike or Delete Denis P. Coggin as a Party Plaintiff, which this court allowed on February 26, 2009. As such, certain motions filed by the parties reference two plaintiffs, while others indicate a single plaintiff. The record includes numerous references to amendments to the Ordinance; however, it is unclear when the City first adopted the Ordinance. That said, it is agreed that the first version of the Ordinance relevant to the case at bar was the 1981 Amendment to the Ordinance (the "1981 Amendment").
[Note 3] On September 18, 2003, between the time that Plaintiff filed the Housing Court Case and the Land Court Case, the Ordinance was amended and recodified. Such amendment made no substantive changes but renumbered the Ordinance's sections. For the sake of clarity, unless otherwise provided in this decision, this court refers to sections of the Ordinance as they were numbered after the September 18, 2003 recodification. [Note 4] Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint added a third count to the Housing Court Case which challenged the Planning Board Decision and demanded a refund of the $550 filing fee that Plaintiff paid as part of the Application Under Zoning for a Special Permit from the Planning Board (the "Planning Board Application") September 25, 2009, filed by Plaintiff, under protest, on January 4, 2007. [Note 5] Plaintiff asks this court for a return of her filing fee (in the amount of $550) related to the Planning Board Application. Despite the fact that Plaintiff paid the filing fee under protest, given that she did so to exhaust her administrative remedies, this court refrains from ordering the return of such funds. [Note 6] To the extent that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint requests the issuance of any required special permits with reasonable conditions, this court refrains from doing so for there is no such challenge currently before this court. Plaintiff also asks this court, if necessary, to determine a volume of excavated material that is incidental to her protected agricultural use. Given the fact-intensive nature of incidental uses, it is not appropriate for this court to make determinations on Plaintiff=s behalf as to Locus' excavation. Home/Search Land Cases by Docket Number