12/12/2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Decisions

Home Browse Search

I i II variance, and determined that the subject property is a separate and buildable lot. 8. On or about February 6, 2002, the Plaintiff, Sandra E. Martig, f/k/a Sandra E. Burroughs, filed the subject complaint. # H. ARGUMENT I ;1 a A. Summary Judgment Standard ' i TM "Summary Judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a mater of law." Polaroid Corp. v. Rollings j Environmental Services (New York) Inc., 416 Mass. 684, 696 (1993). See also, Community Ili National Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553 (1976). (Summary Judgment procedure is an excellent device for prompt disposition of controversies on their merits if there is no real dispute about salient facts or if only questions of law are involved). To oppose Summary Judgment, the non-moving party"may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings,"but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. LeBlanc v. Great American Insurance Company, 6 F. 3d. 386, 841 (1st Cir. 1990); cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1018 (1994). As discussed infra Summa ryJudgment is appropriate here because "the pleadings, depositions, findings of fact" show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Defendant, i Lazarovich, is entitled to judgment as a mater of law. Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c). B. Summary Judgment Should Enter in the Defendant's Favor. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, section 17 a person may appeal a decision of a town board of ( ' appeals to this Honorable Court only if the person is aggrieved by the decision. E.G.. Bell v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester, 429 Mass. 551, 553 (1999); Marashlian v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721 (1996);Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of IIiI Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 131, (1992). A person is aggrieved withing the meaning of 'I� I