• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Wayland Rod & Gun Closure Attempt?

This might be the decision


Reading the decision I don’t think this is a decision on the underlying case. I think this is simply a denial of the motion by a couple neighbors to intervene in the case of Galbi v Wayland ZBA. I don’t think this actually decided Galbi’s case.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a better link? That just goes to a search page and I can’t find the case.
The state's web site doesn't seem to let you link directly to the record. You have to go in step by step.
The judgement seems to say the complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the original ZBA ruling allowing the cell tower stands.

Attached is the Decision, Judgment and case file.

JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Duane Galbi (“Galbi”) brought this action on August 9, 2019, seeking
judicial review pursuant to Chapter 40A, § 17, of a decision (the “Decision”) by the members of
the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wayland (the “Board” and the “Town”), granting a
variance allowing Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon,” and together with the
Board, “Defendants”) to construct a communications cell tower on property located at 4
Meadowview Road, that property owned by the Wayland Rod & Gun Club (the “Project” and the
“Gun Club Property”). Galbi owns and resides at 190 Stonebridge Road, Wayland, and objects to
construction of a cell tower on the Gun Club Property. Trial was held on February 21-22, 2023.
In a decision of even date, the court made findings and rulings of law, concluding that
Galbi lacks standing to challenge the Decision and further concluding that the Board’s Decision
was otherwise fully supported by the evidence at trial and not unreasonable, whimsical,2
capricious or arbitrary, or contrary to law. The court further concluded that an absent Board
member’s failure to file a G.L. c. 39, § 23D certificate did not invalidate the Decision on the
record before the court, and that Verizon’s failure to seek site plan approval prior to its
application did not invalidate the Decision, as an annulment and/or remand to the Board would
be futile under the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the facts before the
court. In accordance with the court’s decision, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wayland granting a variance for Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct
a wireless communications facility at 4 Meadowview Road, Wayland, dated July 23, 2019, and
filed with the Wayland town clerk on the same date, is hereby AFFIRMED, and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that on the Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, judgment
hereby enters in favor of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wayland and Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, against Duane Galbi, and that the complaint, as amended, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and it is further
ORDERED that today’s decision, and this Judgment issued pursuant thereto, dispose of
this entire case; the court has adjudicated or dismissed all claims by all parties in this action and
has not reserved decision on any claim or defense, and it is further
ORDERED that no costs, fees, damages or other amounts are awarded to any party.
 

Attachments

  • Judgement.pdf
    74.5 KB · Views: 1
  • Decision.pdf
    339.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Land Court 19 MISC 000389.pdf
    871.5 KB · Views: 3
The state's web site doesn't seem to let you link directly to the record. You have to go in step by step.
The judgement seems to say the complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the original ZBA ruling allowing the cell tower stands.

Attached is the Decision, Judgment and case file.

JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Duane Galbi (“Galbi”) brought this action on August 9, 2019, seeking
judicial review pursuant to Chapter 40A, § 17, of a decision (the “Decision”) by the members of
the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wayland (the “Board” and the “Town”), granting a
variance allowing Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon,” and together with the
Board, “Defendants”) to construct a communications cell tower on property located at 4
Meadowview Road, that property owned by the Wayland Rod & Gun Club (the “Project” and the
“Gun Club Property”). Galbi owns and resides at 190 Stonebridge Road, Wayland, and objects to
construction of a cell tower on the Gun Club Property. Trial was held on February 21-22, 2023.
In a decision of even date, the court made findings and rulings of law, concluding that
Galbi lacks standing to challenge the Decision and further concluding that the Board’s Decision
was otherwise fully supported by the evidence at trial and not unreasonable, whimsical,2
capricious or arbitrary, or contrary to law. The court further concluded that an absent Board
member’s failure to file a G.L. c. 39, § 23D certificate did not invalidate the Decision on the
record before the court, and that Verizon’s failure to seek site plan approval prior to its
application did not invalidate the Decision, as an annulment and/or remand to the Board would
be futile under the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the facts before the
court. In accordance with the court’s decision, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wayland granting a variance for Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct
a wireless communications facility at 4 Meadowview Road, Wayland, dated July 23, 2019, and
filed with the Wayland town clerk on the same date, is hereby AFFIRMED, and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that on the Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, judgment
hereby enters in favor of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wayland and Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, against Duane Galbi, and that the complaint, as amended, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and it is further
ORDERED that today’s decision, and this Judgment issued pursuant thereto, dispose of
this entire case; the court has adjudicated or dismissed all claims by all parties in this action and
has not reserved decision on any claim or defense, and it is further
ORDERED that no costs, fees, damages or other amounts are awarded to any party.
Thanks. Now we wait to see if Galbi appeals.
 
Back
Top Bottom