CYNTHIA VAN RENSELAAR & others¹

vs.

 

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD & others²

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT. RULINGS OF LAW AND ORDER OF JUDGEMENT ON

PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL PURSUANT TO G.L. c. 40A. §17

 

 

The plaintiffs, Cynthia Van Renselaar, Susan McCarthy and Dennis Ewing brought this action asking this Court to declare invalid a zoning ordinance amendment passed by the Springfield City Council. This matter is before me for final determination after a jury-waived trial. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs petition is Denied

 

BACKGROUND

 

The defendant, Belmont Laundry, is a commercial laundry business presently owned and operated by Robert Samble (“Samble”). Belmont Laundry was founded in 1907 by the Samble family, and is one of the oldest businesses in the City of Springfield. Belmont Laundry is located at 333 Belmont Avenue and has a zoning classification of Business B. Belmont Laundry also owns property behind 333 Belmont Avenue, to the east, located at 25-27 Crystal Avenue. 29 Crystal Avenue, and 33 Crystal Avenue (hereinafter referred to collectively as “parcel”). Prior to

___________________________________________________________________________________

1 Susan McCarthy and Dennis F. Ewing.

 

2 Daniel O’Sullivan. Commissioner of the Department of Code Enforcement, Steven Desiletis Building Inspector and Belmont Laundry. Inc.

1

 

the challenged zoning amendment, the parcel had a zoning classification of Residence B Currently, two wood-frame houses stand at 25-27 Crystal Avenue and 29 Crystal Avenue. The house at 23-2 7 Crystal Avenue is vacant and boarded-up, while the house at 29 Crystal Avenue is occupied by a relative of Samble. Adjacent to the parcel at 5-IS Crystal Avenue. to the north, is an apartment complex. Part of this apartment complex is zoned as Residence B (11-15 Crystal Avenue): and pan of the complex is zoned as Business A (5 Crystal Avenue). Adjacent to the parcel, to the south, are a number of residential properties zoned as Residence B. Finally, to the south of 333 Belmont Avenue. and also to the rear of the parcel, is a retail grocery store, Waldbaum's Food Mast. This toils zoned as Commercial P and Business B.

 

On April 3,1998, Belmont petitioned the Springfield City Council (“City Council”) to change the zoning classification of the parcel from Residence B to Business B. According to a letter written by Belmont Laundry’s counsel to the City Planning Department, the zone change would permit Belmont Laundry to build a garage to house water storage tanks and its delivery trucks. In the letter, Belmont Laundry asserted that two 20,000 gallon water storage tanks would allow it to pre-treat its waste water so us to significantly reduce the levels of Ph, us well as fats. oils and greases (“FOGs”) which are emitted into the City’s sewage system. Belmont Laundry also asserted that a garage would prevent vandalism to its delivery trucks which it currently parks on Belmont Avenue.

 

In accordance with the City of Springfield’s zoning ordinance, Belmont’s zone change petition was referred to the City Planning Board (“Planning Board”). The Planning Board scheduled a public hearing on this issue for June 3. 199SF and notice was mailed to the abutters. The Planning Board recommended approval of the zone change to the City Council by a vote of

 

 

2

three to two, with one abstention.

 

On June 22, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing on the zone change. On July 20, 1998 the City Council voted seven to two in favor of amending the zoning ordinance to change the parcel’s zoning classification from Residence B to Business B. The zoning ordinance change was to become effective on August 20, 1998. Then, on August 18 1998. the plaintiffs filed this action in Superior Court pursuant to 01. e. 40A. § 4, and 0.14. c. 231A. § 1. claiming that the zoning ordinance amendment constitutes “spot” zoning in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and G.L. c. 40A, and that the amendment does not bear a substantial relation” to any of the general objectives of G.L. c. 40A.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDING
           First, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue this action before the court because the plaintiffs are not “person[s] aggrieved.” as required by G.L. c. 40A; nor have they exhausted their administrative remedies as required by aid. c. 40A and C.L. c.

231 A.

A.           Chapter 40A: “Person Aggrieved”

Chapter 40A, § 17 provides that “any person aggrieved” may appeal a decision of a zoning board of’ appeals.’ The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that a plaintiff is a “person

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3   G.L. c. 40A, 917 provides. in pertinent part:

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals or any special

permit granting authority or by the failure of the board of’ appeals to take final action concerning any appeal, application or petition.. . may appeal.

.. if the land is situated in Hampden county. either to.. . superior court 

department or to the division of the bowing court department.... 01. c.

40A. § 17(1993 & 1999 Supp.).

 

3

aggrieved” if he suffers some infringement of his legal rights.  Marashlian v. Zoning Borad of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1996).  The injury must be more than speculative, but the term “person aggrieved” should not be read narrowly. j4. Abutters entitled to notice of zoning board of appeals hearings enjoy a rebuttable presumption Clint they arc “persons aggrieved.” Jd. However, if sanding is challenged, as in this case, the jurisdictional question is decided on “‘all the evidence with no benefit to the plaintiffs from the presumption.”’ Id. Thus, standing in the c. 40A context is. essentially, a question of fact for the trial judge, and the plaintiff must put forth credible evidence to substantiate his allegations. 1d.

 

B.                Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

 

Chapter 40A, j§ 7,3, 13, 14 and 17 require that a plaintiff exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Sec also Quincy v. Planning Board of Tewksbury, 39

Mass. App. Ct. 17,20(1995) (exhaustion of administrative remedies prerequisite to judicial review pursuant to c. 40A). Similarly, G.L. c. 231A. ? 3⁴ imposes the same administrative exhaustion requirements. See also Norfolk Electric.. Inc. v. Fall River Housing, Authority. 437 Mass. 207, 210(1994) (party’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies precludes resort to a court for declaratory relief. However, where resort to an administrative agency obviously would be futile, and there is no fact-finding function for the agency to perform, a court may exercise jurisdiction despite a plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Norfolk Electric. Inc.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4  G.L.. c. 23lA. § provides. in pertinent part:

The failure to exhaust administrative relief prior to bringing an action under section one shall not bar the bringing of such action if the petition for declaratory relief is accompanied by an affidavit stating that the practice or procedure set forth pursuant to the provisions of section is known to exist by the agency or official therein described and that reliance on administrative relief would be futile.

 

 

4

 

v. Fall River Housing Authority, 417 Mass. at 210.

     In this case, the plaintiffs were not required to appeal to the City of Springfield Zoning

Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) to have the zoning amendment changed. First, an appeal to the ZBA

would have been improper because the ZBA does not have the authority to nullify acts of the

City Council. Bearce v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brockton, 353 Mass. 316, 319-320(1966);

Gamache v. Acushnet 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215,223 (1982) (board of appeal not proper forum for questions us to validity of municipal zoning regulations); G.L. c. 40A, 12 and 14 (setting forth powers of the board of appeals). Instead, the City Council is charged with the adoption and amendment of zoning ordinances under G.L. c. 40A. 55. Furthermore, even if the parties had appealed to the ZBA it would have been futile. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to appeal to the ZBA prior to seeking judicial review, and this matter is properly before this Court.

 

II.  VALIDITY OF ZONING AMENDMENT

 

The plaintiffs’ principal argument is that the zoning amendment is invalid wider the provisions of G.L. c. 40AY Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the amendment constitutes “spot zoning,” because it does not serve the public welfare, but merely affords an economic benefit to Belmont Laundry. the owner of the parcel.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

⁵ Chapter 40A states that zoning regulations may be enacted:

.... to lessen congestion in the streets; to conserve health: to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population to encourage housing for persons of all income levels; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation. water, water supply, drainage, sewerage, schools, parks. open space and other public requirements; to conserve the value of land and buildings, including the conservation of natural resources and the prevention of blight and pollution of the environment; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city or town.

 

5

One who challenges the constitutionality of a zoning law must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the zoning regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Johnson v. Edgartown 425 Mass. 117, 121 (1997). A zoning by-law whose reasonableness is fairly debatable will be sustained, Id.⁶  Provided an amendment is within the scope of chapter 40A. it will be valid even if it results in hardship to some landowner by depriving him of some beneficial use of his land, or adversely affects the value of some other properties in the vicinity of a newly created zone. Lanner v. Board of Appeal of Tewksburv, 348 Mass. 220. 228 (1964). See also Caires v. Building Commissioner of Hingham 323 Mass. 589, 594 (1949).

 

“Spot zoning is defined as a “‘singling out of one lot for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character. all for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot.”’ Rando v. Town of North Attleborough 44 Mass, App. Ct. 603, 606 (1998), quoting Whittemore v. Building Inspector of Falmouth, 313 Mass. 248. 249 (1943). Such zoning constitutes a denial of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Anneals Comm., 363 Mass. 339. 362 n.l5 (1973). and violates the “uniformity” requirement of chapter 40A, § 4⁷

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

After careful consideration of all testimony presented to me, I find as follows:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

⁶ A Superior Court judge must hear a zoning appeal de novo. Joseph v. Board of Appeals of Brookline, 362 Mass. 290. 295 (1972): Needham Pastoral Counseling Center, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Needham, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 31.32 (1990).

 

⁷ G.L. c. 40A. § 4 provides, in pertinent part: “Any zoning ordinance or by-law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted.”

 

6

1.            Belmont Laundry, a defendant in this case is located at 333 Belmont Avenue in Springfield, Massachusetts under a zoning classification of Business B. It owns property behind 333 Belmont Avenue to the east located at 25-27 Crystal Avenue, 29 Crystal Avenue, and 33 Crystal Avenue. The parcel that is in question is found to be 33 Crystal Avenue upon which certain construction would take place. Prior to the challenged zoning amendment, that parcel had a zoning classification of Residence B. The parcel that I am referring to is collective in nature which would include all the property behind 33 Belmont Avenue expressed above.

 

2.            There are currently two wood framed houses at 25-27 Crystal Avenue and 29 Crystal Avenue. The house at 25-27 is vacant, boarded up, and has not had tenants for a considerable period of time. The house at 29 Crystal Avenue is occupied by a relative of Mr. Samble.

 

3.            Adjacent to the parcel at 33 Crystal Avenue to the north is an apartment complex.

 

4.            Part of the apartment complex is zoned as Business B (11-15 Crystal Avenue) and part of the complex is zoned as Business A (5 Crystal Avenue) adjacent to the so-called parcel. (the Crystal Avenue properties referenced above have a zoning classification of Residence B). There are, adjacent to that parcel to the south, a number of residential properties zoned Residence B.

 

5.            South of 33 Belmont Avenue. is the building housing Belmont Laundry, and to the “rear of the parcel” is a retail grocery store, Waldbaum’s Foodmart. This lot is zoned as Commercial P and Business B.

 

6             On April 3. 1998, Belmont Laundry petitioned the City Council to change the zoning

 

7

 

classification of the above-referenced pared. 33 Crystal Avenue.

7.            The zone change would permit Belmont Laundry to build a garage to house water storage tanks and its delivery trucks.

8.            Belmont intended to have two twenty thousand (20,000) gallon water storage tanks to allow it to retreat waste water so as to reduce levels of Ph, fats, oil and greases (“FOGs’) which are emitted into the city sewage system. Belmont also has sustained considerable vandalism in die area.

 

9.            I find that the garage proposed by Belmont would prevent a considerable amount of vandalism to delivery trucks which an parked on Belmont Avenue.

 

10. According to certain zoning ordinances, the zone change petition was referred to the City Planning Board which scheduled u hearing for June 3. 1998 with notice to all abutters.

 

11.          The Planning Board recommended approval of the zone change to the City Council by a vote of 3-2 with ore abstention.

 

12.          The City Council then held a public hearing on the zone change, and on July 20, 1998, the date of’ said hearing, voted 7-2 in favor of amending the zoning ordinance to change the parcel zoning classification from Residence B to Business B. The zoning ordinance change became effective on August 20. 3998.

13..         There an a number of businesses on Belmont Avenue and in the surrounding area. Belmont Laundry has been business in Springfield for a protracted period of time. It supplies health care providers with cleaned items and treats with chemicals, whatever water needs to be treated in their current location.

14.          Mr. Robert B. Samble has been president of Belmont Laundry for 24 years. He started

                                         

8

employ age 11 when the company was founded in 1907. As previously mentioned, Belmont owns homes on Crystal Avenue. Samble himself lived at 27 Crystal Avenue in the 1970’s for approximately three years. Currently his step-son resides in one of the homes.

 

15.          On the subject parcels. Belmont had to board up the houses because of vandalism. At one point they contemplated a fence. Currently there is no fence in the front of the subject property area, but one at the rear of the homes.

 

16.          Step vans are parked along the front of Belmont Avenue. There are six registered step vans which have been vandalized in the past.

 

17.          Up to and including the time of trial, vandalism to the trucks occurs or occurred approximately three times per month. The parking lot at Belmont Avenue is not fenced in and vandals have caused inconvenience to customers as a result of their actions.

 

18.          Belmont Oil, a business located some three quarters of a mile to a mile from the subject property has a fenced in area.

 

19.       In the 1980’s. Belmont Laundry was notified of the pre-treatment requirements of water. It owns a Facility at 529 Sumner Avenue in 

Springfield. which is a production facility. It also owns other storage stores and stores dealing with the general public that are non- 

production facilities.

 

20.          The main production facility which receives laundry is 333 Belmont Avenue, It receives laundry from other stores in Springfield and other towns in the adjacent area, including Longmeadow, West Springfield and Agawam. It is the only washing facility for Springfield and those towns.

 

9

21.          Currently the flow of Ph and other ingredients arc self-monitored by measurement flows through periodic taking of samples and lab analysis. Belmont Laundry controls and monitors the same. The samples of the various ingredients are analyzed by the industrial pre-treatment program known as IBP. If there is non-compliance, an enforcement charge is levied against Belmont Laundry and other facilities.

 

22. Belmont’s building proposal (which would include the facility for water pre-treatment) would have a garage in which six step-vans would be housed, as well as possibly ten trucks to go to and from the building.

 

23.          All trucks will be and/or are owned by Belmont Laundry, and will be garaged there.

 

24.          There has been increased free flowing waste in the area since the 1970’s. A majority of the properties around Crystal Avenue have not been upgraded in terms of construction or improvement.

 

25.          Belmont Laundry services many medical groups including Bay State Medical Center in Springfield. They service virtually all medical providers in western Massachusetts. Other customers include Kaiser-Permanente. It services approximately thirteen facilities in other states, including Connecticut.

 

26.          The zone change request was based upon a need for a tank large enough to store pre­treatment waste water to comply with the local limits of the previously mentioned program.

 

27.          Belmont Laundry would have to spend a considerable amount of money to purchase equipment to treat waste water if they could not acquire this zoning change.

 

28.          At least two other businesses have left the area for failure to comply with the industrial

 

 

10

treatment plan.

 

29.          The Belmont employees number approximately sixty-five to seventy with two thirds residing in Springfield.

 

30.          At one time, there was considerable vandalism to the homes in the area that gave rise to a demolition order. Prior vandalism occurred in the rear at the current structure. Fences were used as a method of preventing vandalism but could not be put into the front of the property because it would affect business. The high fence would discourage retail trade and a fence would not be receptive or inviting to retail customers.

 

31. Vandalism also caused considerable delay in Belmont’s ability to service its customers. A new structure would eradicate the delay problem because the fences would not in any way effect service to retail consumers.

 

32.          The industrial pre-treatment program, the IPB, would comply with the new structure. Fats, oil and grease detected in a cycle of waste water are currently emitted from the various machines. It is currently required that all water emitted from the facility be treated.

 

33.          The City of Springfield has very restrictive waste wager treatment requirements. Other laundries have left the area because the restrictions are so rigid. Springfield requires that Ph values not exceed 9. Other communities, however allow Ph values of up to 10 and 11.

 

34. Treatment of the water involves the removal of various soaps and oils from the wash water. Oil pads are used to absorb through the screening process. The contamination of the water eventually results in sludge being pumped out and taken off the site. This is done once every six months.

 

11

35.           As previously stated. Belmont owns ten vehicles and the proposed garage would house six. Two or three would be traveling out on a frequent basis. The garage would house only commercial vehicles, and not accommodate employee parking.

 

36.          Two twenty thousand gallon water tanks will be needed. They also require pumping equipment. At present, Belmont cannot fit the required tanks and pumping equipment inside its current business structure.

 

37.          Belmont needs additional space for a proper water treatment facility, thereby enabling it to comply with the aforementioned requirements.

 

38.          It is clear the only problem Belmont currently has is an inability to store water.

 

39.          The additional tanks would range approximately twenty feet long and ten feet in diameter. There is no place in the current facility to house these tanks, The two proposed twenty thousand gallon tanks would allow all waste water to be treated. While one tank is filling, the other tank is treating water from the previous day, The entire water treatment process takes approximately forty-eight hours.

 

40. Longmeadow, Agawam and West Springfield all have shirts shipped to Springfield for the purpose of cleaning.

 

41.          Basically, the aforementioned towns ship shirts to Springfield, and those towns, in and of themselves have the same pre-treatment facility requirements as Springfield.

 

42.          If the Ph restriction levels are not right and in compliance with the requirements fines could be levied upon Belmont Laundry.

43.          Two of Belmont’s trucks would be used to transport material from house to house. All other trucks would be for commercial use.

12

 

44.         The Springfield City Council had some input from the Planning Department. The Planning Department conducted a staff analysis in a site visit to review submitted materials. The information was analyzed and the position of the City Planning Department was to deny Belmont Laundry’s initial request.

 

45.        In October of 1978, there was an attempt to reduce the solids in the bacteria that were flowing from the City of Springfield into the Connecticut River. The Water Commission took over the waste treatment for Bondi’s Island. Pretreatment of’ industrial waste is another requirement of Federal and State law.

 

46.        The goal is to prevent introduction of metals and other toxins that would interfere with sludge, the solid residue from the treatment process. Other communities send their waste to Bondi’s Island. namely West Springfield. Agawam. Longmeadow and East Longmeadow

 

47.        The City of Springfield has adopted Sewer and Water Commission rules, which follow City ordinances. As previously mentioned. costs are assessed on institutions or establishments that do not comply with the requirements regarding waste water treatment. If a violation did occur there would be a charge to the licensee. Belmont Laundry had not had a permit suspended or revoked in the past.

 

48.        Belmont Laundry has had problems with the waste treatment in the past regarding fats, oils and greases. The water storage facility that they currently have is unable to give the proper retention time needed for the correct dissolution of the processed ingredients.

 

49. According to the testimony of a chemical engineer, one day’s worth of storage would he needed to properly dissolve the chemicals. There would be other technologies available

 

13

to meet the standard. namely (1) API separation which would involve a large tank, and (2) CPI separator which involves corrugated plates collecting oils. These alternative systems are larger than the one Belmont Laundry currently has, and they do not have enough space in their plant for such systems.

 

50.          Belmont also lacks the space to retain enough water for the necessary length of time to comply with the pretreatment regulations.

 

51. Approximately seven trucks would exit the proposed building between 7:00 and 3:00 in the morning and turn onto Crystal Avenue. The building would ultimately remain closed, and between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.. the trucks would come back to park. Reloading the trucks during the day would take place away from Crystal Avenue.

 

52.          Belmont Avenue is an arterial way with a great deal of truck traffic. Crystal Avenue is not an arterial way, but it is a supportive road for use of the main road.

 

53.          The proposed expansion could not be accomplished without a Business B rezoning.

 

RULINGS OF LAW

 

After careful application of the facts as found to the above applicable law, I rule as

follows:

1.         As a matter of law, the plaintiffs are “persons aggrieved” for the purposes of G.L. c. 40A, § 17,, and therefore have standing to bring this suit. Specifically, they live in the immediate vicinity of 33 Crystal Avenue at 20. 48 and 70 Crystal Avenue, and are most likely to bear the brunt of any perceived problems associated with the rezoning of, and construction on 33 Crystal Avenue.

 

2.            As stated above, the plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies.

14

 

3.            Acts of vandalism have been consistent in the area and would be somewhat remedied if Belmont's requests had been granted.

 

4.         There are a number of properties along Belmont Avenue and in the surrounding area that are consistent with the global view of’ Belmont Avenue in terms of business establishments. It is clear that there would be truck transportation in and out of the proposed Belmont Laundry facility. However, it would not create a traffic congestion problem or interrupt traffic flow that would in any way impair public safety. Trucks would exit Crystal Avenue at approximately 8:00 a.m. and return sometime wound 5:00 p.m.

 

5.            There is no other business use on Crystal Avenue itself other than the proposed Belmont laundry facility. Basically, increased truck traffic would cause an indirect effect, but, based on the amount of trucks involved and the change resulting from the additional construction, this would not amount to any adverse effect on public health and safety. In other words, any increased truck traffic on Crystal Avenue would not compromise public health or safety.

 

6.            In terms of public convenience, there are no facts to indicate that either public convenience, or public morals would be negatively affected. Further, there are no facts to demonstrate that public welfare would be negatively affected.

 

7. The Planning Board recommended approval after a public hearing notwithstanding the fact the Planning Department did not hold the public hearing. It is the function however, of the Planning Board, not the Planning Department to hold the hearing. The Planning Board held the hearing to get additional information. The City Council then held

 

15

hearings for further information.

 

8.            A major complaint by Plaintiff Van Renselaar, a resident of 70 Crystal Avenue, was that her property value would be decreased. However, there was no indication of the same by way of expert testimony or otherwise. Further, there was no indication by expert testimony or otherwise that aesthetics regarding the construction of a garage would be negatively affected. This as nothing more than the resident’s personal opinion.

 

9.            Based on the evidence presented, the water storage tanks to be constructed will not affect public safety.

 

10.          Another resident indicated people would break into homes sometime in1995 and that homes were boarded up in the adjacent area and on the street itself. There was theft and vandalism as previously mentioned. However, in the last year there have been no incidents of vandalism.

 

11.          The resident also testified that with the new construction she would have a hard time getting off of the street, that this would worsen the current situation, and that there is a parking problem an the street. There was some concern over chemicals and children being on the street. She did not in any way substantiate these claims.

 

12.          There is no evidence by way of expert opinion or otherwise to show that there will be a negative environmental effect of Belmont’s request for construction and water treatment renovation

 

13.          The current system at Belmont Laundry will not comply with the applicable waste water treatment regulations. The proposed construction would involve a new treatment process that solves Belmont Laundry’s problems.

 

 

16

14.         The City of Springfield treats approximately 44,000,000 gallons of water per day. Water leaving Belmont Laundry goes into a sewer line with other sewage in that area. F.O.G., (fats, oils and grease), and Ph excursions arc Belmont Laundry’s main problems. Solids would end up in the river if they are not adequately settled. Belmont has taken steps to equalize the discharge situation, but the tanks would be necessary in order to effectuate this properly.

 

15.          Further studies indicate that the traffic in the area would not be negatively affected by the construction of the building.

 

16.          The new building and the garaging of seven trucks would have little or no negative impact on the residents of Crystal Avenue. In fact, the residential uses of the other three buildings would have more of a negative impact due to their current state and the prospects of continuing vandalism.

 

17.          The public interest would be advanced in that cleaner water would be promoted as a result of the additional ability to pretreat it.

 

18.          The additional traffic flow or the mode of traffic flow would have no negative impact on the public generally.

 

19.          Belmont would be forced to comply with regulations with which they are now having difficulty. At present, waste water from Belmont Laundry flows into the Springfield water system. Samples of this outflow are observed every 15 minutes. There are recordings being made by meters. There is a sludge collection in the area of treatment.

 

20.          There is no negative impact on the residences regarding the additional facility. traffic flow, the environment and anything else including the public morals. it is clear that the

 

17

waste water treatment facility would assure further compliance in that Belmont would he unable to comply with waste water treatment requirements if the existing facility were to continue as is.

 

21.          The court finds that the health and safety of the public as well as the public morals public convenience and general welfare of the public will not be negatively affected by these zoning amendment remaining in tact.

22.          Having heard the parties’ arguments and reviewed all the relevant evidence, this Court

               finds that the zoning amendment in this case must be upheld. Although Belmont Laundry

clearly benefits from the zoning amendment, the general public will also receive considerable benefits

 

23.          Because the plaintiffs have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the zoning amendment is arbitrary and unreasonable, or unrelated to the public health. safety, morals, or general welfare, the Court finds the amendment valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

ORDER

 

For the reasons stated above, at is therefore ORDERED that judgment enter for the defendants.

 

 

 

Peter A. Velis

Justice of the Superior Court

 

DATED: August 16, 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19