COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

HAMPDEN, ss.                                                         SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
                                                                                    CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-833

CYNTHIA VAN RENSELAAR,                   )

SUSAN MCCARTHY and                            )
DENNIS EWING,                                         )

                                Plaintiffs        )
                 v.                                             )       PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND

                                                                                     THE  JUDGMENT

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,                             )
DANIEL O’SULLIVAN,
COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CODE                          )
ENFORCEMENT, and STEVEN                  )
DESILETIS, BUILDING INSPECTOR,      )
and BELMONT LAUNDRY, INC.,              )
                                                )

                                                  Defendants   )

 

 

Now come the Plaintiffs, Cynthia Van Renselaar, et al, and move this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the Judgment entered by the Court on August 30, 1999. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiffs state that:

1.  The Judgment of the Court does not contain any provisions as to the manner in which the Defendant, Belmont Laundry, Inc. (“Belmont Laundry”) is to construct the garage which is planned to house its delivery trucks and water storage tanks (the “structure”).

2.  In Petitioning the Planning Board and the Springfield City Council for the Zone Change, Belmont Laundry represented that the structure would be connected to the existing plant; that the front would be paved and shrubbery would be planted along Crystal Avenue with a fence located behind the shrubbery; and that the northern property line would have a stockade fence. [See Exhibits 5 and 6 - letters from Attorney Santaniello to the Planning Board and Planning Department.]

 

3.  At the hearing before the Springfield City Council, Belmont Laundry represented to the City Councillors that the structure would be made of a brick which was consistent with the main plant; that the structure would be connected to the main plant; that there would be a fence and shrubbery in the front of the structure and that there would be a stockade fence between the abutting properties and in the rear of the property as well. (See Exhibit 9 - Minutes of Springfield City Council Meeting - Pages 5 and 6.]

4.  While no transcript has been ordered, it is counsel for Plaintiffs’ recollection that Mr. Hawkins (Belmont Laundry’s expert witness) testified that it was his understanding that the structure would be constructed in a manner consistent with presentations made by Belmont Laundry to the Planning Board and the Springfield City Council.

5.  While no transcript has been ordered, it is counsel for the Plaintiffs’ recollection that at the conclusion of the trial, Belmont Laundry represented to the Court that the structure would be built in accordance with the representations made to both the Planning Board and the Springfield City Council.

6.  Neither the State Building Code nor the  Zoning Ordinances of the City of Springfield require Belmont Laundry to construct the structure in the manner which it represented it would be constructed to the Planning Board, the City Council and this Court. The construction of the structure in the manner represented by Belmont Laundry would protect, to some degree, the residential character of Crystal Avenue and screen, to some extent, the commercial character of the structure to be constructed by Belmont Laundry.

-2-

7.  M.G.L.c. 40A, § 17. provides that the Court has the authority to make “such other decree as justice and equity may require.

8.  It is respectfully suggested by the Plaintiffs that the Court amend its Judgment to require that the structure constructed by Belmont Laundry on the property collectively referred to by the Court in its Judgment as the “parcel” be constructed as follows:

A.        With a brick material which is consistent with the existing plant;

B.         That the structure be connected to the main plant;

C.        That the structure be fenced in front with shrubbery in front of the fence;

D.        That there be a stockade fence on the parcel between the abutting properties; and

E.                  That there be a stockade fence at the rear of the parcel. .

­WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court amend the Judgment in

a manner consistent with Paragraph 8 of this Motion.

 

THE PLAINTIFFS

 

 

Mark E. Draper Their Attorney
BBO #134540
Annino, Draper & Moor, P.C.

P.O. Box 15428

1500 Main Street, Suite 1818

Springfield, MA 01115-5428

Telephone (413) 732-6400

Facsimile (413) 732-6400

 

 

 

 

 

-3-