Posts tagged "Eisai"

Eisai, Inc., et al. v. Housing Appeals Committee, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-072-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-680                                        Appeals Court   EISAI, INC., & others[1]  vs.  HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE & another.[2] No. 15-P-680. Suffolk.     March 8, 2016. – June 20, 2016.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Massing, JJ. Housing.  Zoning, Housing appeals committee, Comprehensive permit, Person aggrieved.  Practice, Civil, Zoning appeal, Standing.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 11, 2014.   The case was heard by Edward P. Leibensperger, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings.     Christopher Robertson (Jonathan D. Witten with him) for the plaintiffs. Suleyken D. Walker for Housing Appeals Committee. Kevin P. O’Flaherty for Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership.      MASSING, J.  This appeal concerns the standards that defendant housing appeals committee (HAC) applies when it reviews the decision of a local zoning board of appeals to deny an application under the Comprehensive Permit Act, G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23 (act), based on municipal planning concerns. The plaintiffs, owners and lessors of commercial and industrial properties neighboring the proposed housing development (hereinafter, abutters or, in context, interveners), appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming the HAC’s decision directing the zoning board of appeals for the town of Andover (board) to issue a comprehensive permit to defendant Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership (developer).  The abutters claim that the HAC impermissibly applied a new standard, not contained in any statute, regulation, or previous HAC decision, in evaluating Andover’s municipal planning efforts.  In the alternative, they claim that the HAC erroneously applied the applicable standard.  The defendants, for their part, contend that the abutters lack standing to bring this appeal.  Concluding that the abutters have standing, we reach the merits and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the HAC’s decision. Background.  On August 19, 2011, the developer filed an application for a comprehensive permit to build a mixed income rental housing development to be known as the “Lodge at Andover” within an existing office and industrial park.  The proposed location for the residential development, 30 Shattuck Road, is mostly within Andover’s River Road industrial D district, a commercial and industrial area in the northernmost part of Andover, near the River Road exit of Interstate Route 93.[3]   Shattuck Road, a dead end, and Tech Drive, a small looping road off of Shattuck Road, make up the office and industrial park consisting of ten large businesses and one vacant lot:  the proposed […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 20, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,