Town of Northborough v. Anza

• Decision Date: 13 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-P-442
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts
• Parties: TOWN OF NORTHBOROUGH[1] v. SANTO ANZA[2] & another.[3]

TOWN OF NORTHBOROUGH^[1]
v.
SANTO ANZA^[2] & another.^[3]

No. 21-P-442

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

May 13, 2022

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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 23.0 or 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendants, Santo Anza, individually and as trustee of the 429 Whitney Street Realty Trust, and S.A. Farm, LLC, appeal from a civil contempt judgment entered against them for violation of a preliminary injunction, and from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment of contempt pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). The defendants claim the judge erred in finding them in contempt because the preliminary injunction did not contain a clear and unequivocal command. We affirm.

1

Background.

In August 2018, the town of Northborough (town) filed a complaint against the defendants alleging nuisance, violation of the town's zoning bylaw, and violations of air pollution control regulations with respect to operations at the defendants' Whitney Street property. The town requested both a preliminary and permanent injunction.

A Superior Court judge granted the town a preliminary injunction in October 2018, ordering the defendants "to cease-and-desist from receiving, accepting, bringing or taking onto the Property any spent, discarded or previously used organic material in excess of the quantity reasonably required for the reasonable and ordinary feeding of any farm animals and/or livestock maintained at the Property."

The town filed a complaint for contempt (and later an amended complaint) alleging the defendants violated the preliminary injunction by receiving and accepting food waste products outside the scope of reasonable and ordinary feed for animals or livestock on the property. After a two-day contempt trial on July 9 and 10, 2019, the judge found the defendants violated the injunction and held them in civil contempt. Among other things, the judge found "that the sheer volume, type, variety, packaging, storage, and piling of the discarded food products, as well as the length of time those products were exposed to the elements, confirms that large portions of the

2

products depicted in the aerial images were not being used to feed the livestock." The judge credited the testimony of both of the town's witnesses and relied on photographic exhibits to find that "large portions of discarded food products remained on the property, on some occasions, for at least days or weeks at a time." The town's expert witness testified, and the judge found, that while discarded food can be used as animal feed, the food is only edible for a short period of time, after which the food spoils or decomposes. The judge also credited the expert's testimony that poor composting practices were consistent with the odors emanating from the property.^[4]...