 |
The firm of Kopelman and Paige, P.C., was appointed Town Counsel for the Town of Belmont effective July 1, 2004. In consultation with the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator, it was agreed that most of the on-going litigation would be transferred to Kopelman and Paige, except for matters, such as the Burbank School release, that were being handled by special counsel. Former Town Counsel continued to represent the Town in cases where the litigation was substantially completed except for finalization of settlement or a pending appeal. Accordingly, the attached report covers litigation matters which were either (1) transferred to Kopelman and Paige, (2)
cases where we have been asked to file an appearance, and (3) new cases that have been initiated since our appointment.
During the first few months after our appointment, the firm worked closely with the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator on transition matters. The transition services were provided at no charge to the Town. We have also been asked to render numerous legal opinions related to zoning and other land use matters, interpretations of Town By-Laws and Special Acts relating to Belmont, and we have reviewed contracts for various Town departments. Town Counsel has provided representation to the Police Chief and Fire Chief on numerous labor and employment matters, and we have assisted the Board of Assessors on several real estate tax exemption questions.
Town Counsel has been working closely with the Board of Selectmen and Board of Health to ensure that the Purecoat North facility complies with the outstanding enforcement order issued by the Board of Health. We have also been advising the Town with respect to the proposed development projects relating to the Uplands.
We have provided substantial assistance to the Library Trustees, the Human Rights Commission, the Uplands Advisory Committee, the Energy Management Committee, and the Purecoat Committee.
We extend our appreciation to the Board of Selectmen for their confidence in appointing this firm as Town Counsel, and appreciate the assistance and cooperation on all matters from the Board of Selectmen, the former Town Administrator, the Acting Town Administrator, department heads, boards, committees and other Town personnel. We look forward to working with the members of the Town Government in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
John W. Giorgio, Esq.
Status Report on Pending Litigation Matters Pending with Town Counsel
Healthy Pet Corporation v. Belmont Board of Selectmen: This is a complaint in the nature of certiorari to correct alleged errors in proceedings by the Board of Selectmen in issuing a Kennel license to plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to challenge certain conditions of its 2004 Kennel license. The license, however, expired on December 31, 2004. Town Counsel is in the process of pursuing a dismissal. This case was consolidated with Case No. 03-4644, Healthy Pet v. Town of Belmont below.
Healthy Pet Corporation v. Town of Belmont: This is a complaint in seven counts alleging violations of plaintiff’s rights under c.40A, section 6, the U.S. Constitution, and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (due process and equal protection), and seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Town’s Kennel Bylaw. This matter has been consolidated with Case No. 04-827, Healthy Pet v. Belmont Board of Selectmen above. This matter is pending and Town Counsel is attempting to narrow the issues for adjudication.
American Retirement Corporation v. Belmont Planning, American Retirement Corporation v. Belmont Zoning Board of Appeals: This matter involves two consolidated appeals by American Retirement Corporation, one from the Planning Board’s decision conditioning the site plan approval on compliance with the Affordable Housing Requirement of Section 6A.4 of the Zoning Bylaw, and the other from the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision to uphold the Building Inspector’s denial of a building permit for a portion of a 482-unit continuing care retirement community project. These cases are being handled by special counsel, but Town Counsel was asked to file an appearance as well. In a decision dated January 19, 2005, the Land Court denied the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings and granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, remanding the site plan decision to the Planning Board for amendment, remanding the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision with instructions that a building permit be issued. for a new decision authorizing the issuance of a building permit.
Schipani v. Town of Belmont: This is a matter brought by the plaintiff claiming damages due to an inaccurate water meter at his property located at 36-38 Clyde Street, which resulted in excessive water fees. The plaintiff is seeking to recoup what he believes are overcharges due to the malfunction. In October 2004, counsel met with plaintiff and his attorney to propose a settlement. The plaintiff submitted a settlement offer which is under consideration.
In the Matter of O’Neill – Properties Located on Frontage Road and Acorn Park Drive: This matter is an appeal by the Conservation Commission from the Superseding Order of Conditions that was issued on September 30, 2004, by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), concerning the proposed construction of a four-story, 245,000-square foot office/research and development building and multi-level parking garage at Frontage Road and Acorn Park Drive. The Commission had previously issued a Denial Order of Conditions for the project. On January 20, 2005, all parties (including a citizens’ group that has filed a separate appeal) attended a screening conference conducted by a DEP hearing officer. As an outcome of the screening conference, the parties agreed to explore possible options
for settlement before the case is formally referred to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals.
| |
