DiRico v. Town of Kingston
458 Mass. 83, 934 N.E.2d 208 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's failure to update its calculation of 'developable land' in a smart growth zoning application, even when obligated to do so, does not invalidate the resulting zoning bylaw. The statutory remedy for such procedural non-compliance is administrative, such as the revocation of state financial incentives, not judicial invalidation of the local law.
Facts:
- Thorndike Development Corporation held an option to purchase a 109-acre property in the Town of Kingston to create a 'smart growth' development.
- In June 2006, the Town of Kingston submitted an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for a smart growth zoning district on the property, certifying it contained 69.6 acres of 'developable land.'
- Effective October 1, 2006, the state's Natural Heritage Atlas was updated, designating a substantial portion of the property as a 'priority habitat' for state-listed rare species.
- The Town became aware of this new environmental designation in November 2006 but did not amend the 'developable land' figures in its application to the DHCD.
- On April 11, 2007, the Kingston town meeting adopted the zoning amendment creating the smart growth district based on the original, unamended application.
- The DHCD granted final approval on August 28, 2007, and the town received a $600,000 incentive payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, who are landowners, filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Land Court against the Town of Kingston and other defendants to invalidate a new zoning amendment.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining count of the complaint.
- The Land Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the case on its own motion for appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a town's failure to update its application for a smart growth zoning district to reflect a new rare species habitat designation, thereby misstating the amount of 'developable land,' render the subsequently adopted zoning amendment invalid as an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of zoning power?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
No. The town's failure to update its calculation of 'developable land' does not invalidate the zoning amendment. A zoning bylaw is a legislative act afforded a strong presumption of validity and will only be overturned if proven to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to public welfare. Although the court found the town was obligated under state regulations to report the change in developable land to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), the controlling statute, G. L. c. 40R, § 7, explicitly states that even a revocation of the state's certification 'shall not affect the validity of the smart growth zoning ordinance or by-law.' The proper remedy for such non-compliance is administrative and financial—such as the suspension or repayment of state incentive payments—not the invalidation of the local zoning law. Furthermore, the zoning amendment serves a valid public purpose of creating housing and does not circumvent other environmental regulations, as the developer must still undergo a separate permitting process to address the rare species habitat.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between a municipality's procedural obligations to a state administrative agency and the legal validity of its local zoning enactments. It establishes that procedural flaws in a state application process under G.L. c. 40R, while potentially sanctionable by the state agency, do not provide a basis for landowners to invalidate a zoning bylaw in court. This reinforces the strong presumption of validity afforded to legislative acts like zoning and directs challenges regarding statutory compliance toward administrative remedies, such as financial penalties, rather than judicial invalidation of the underlying ordinance.
