Opinion
10-P-1246
12-12-2011
MALCOLM KASPARIAN, JR. v. PLANNING BOARD OF LEXINGTON & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Agreeing with the defendants that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient aggrievement, as required by G. L. c. 40A, § 17, a judge of the Land Court allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff has appealed.
The plaintiff owns residential property abutting the locus, for which the Lexington planning board granted a special permit with site plan review authorizing construction of a thirteen-unit condominium complex. The plaintiff argues that the proposed development will be too high and too dense, and will violate other provisions of the zoning by-law.
No variance was granted in this case.
In an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive order allowing the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the judge concluded that the plaintiff had not established sufficient aggrievement. We rely upon the judge's decision and the authorities he cited.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Mills, Smith & Wolohojian, JJ.),