Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; November 22, 2002; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The interveners contest a Land Court judgment affirming the validity of a zoning amendment enacted by the town of Belmont affecting property owned by McLean Hospital Corporation. They argue that the amendment constitutes illegal contract zoning, alleging it represents an unlawful exchange of the town's police power through a bilateral contract favoring McLean. The interveners claim the contract contradicts public policy and stipulates consideration the town may never collect. They also label the town's actions as unlawful spot zoning and question the timing of the rezoning relative to the parties' agreement. The court found no errors in the judge’s assessment, affirming that the relevant criteria were correctly identified and applied to the facts.
Key facts include that McLean owns approximately 238 acres in Belmont, previously zoned as a 'single residence D' district while operating as a nonconforming use. Financial pressures prompted McLean to consider developing or selling about 190 acres, leaving 48 acres for ongoing operations. A 'McLean Hospital Land Use Task Force' was formed, which involved community input and established principles aimed at guiding development while preserving the area’s natural and historic character. Despite McLean's initial proposals being rejected, a revised proposal led to a memorandum of understanding that facilitated a comprehensive rezoning process, documented in detail by the Land Court judge.
A proposed amendment to the Belmont zoning by-law, which was revised based on planning board discussions and consultant recommendations, resulted in the creation of a McLean zoning district with six subdistricts: residential, senior living, research and development, McLean institutional, open space, and cemetery. Key provisions included details on permitted uses, dimensions, access, and parking. A special town meeting was convened, where Article 2 of the warrant proposed the zoning amendment, while Articles 3 to 5 addressed various agreements with McLean, including the conveyance of land for a cemetery and public open space, traffic improvement funding, consultant reimbursement, and a tax exemption petition. The planning board recommended approval, but Article 2 failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority for passage, leading to the dismissal of Articles 3 to 5. Following a motion for reconsideration, the parties developed a revised proposal addressing concerns raised, which included reduced maximum square footage for the research subdistrict, elimination of the consultant reimbursement, and adjustments to payment amounts that resulted in a net cost of $2.2 million to the town. At the reconvened town meeting, Articles 2 through 5 passed with the required majority. Subsequently, a special town election confirmed this approval with approximately 69.5% voting in favor. The Attorney General approved the rezoning, except for the amendments concerning the cemetery subdistrict, and a memorandum of agreement was executed between McLean and the town, encapsulating their commitments.
Interveners allege that the rezoning is illegal, asserting it reflects a misuse of the town’s police power, establishes a duty for the town to rezone, and serves the interests of a private landowner over the public interest. These claims collectively suggest that the rezoning constitutes unlawful contract zoning, which occurs when a local government agrees with a developer to rezone property in exchange for certain promises from the developer. This process raises concerns that the municipality may compromise its regulatory authority for benefits favoring the landowner. However, the mere existence of an agreement does not invalidate zoning actions; the nature of the agreement and the zoning action itself are critical factors. Past appellate court decisions have upheld zoning actions even when agreements with developers were present. In *Sylvania Elec. Prod. Inc. v. Newton*, a landowner’s agreement to limit parcel use in exchange for rezoning did not invalidate the zoning amendment, as the mutual commitments did not compromise the zoning’s legitimacy. Similarly, in *Rando v. North Attleborough*, the court found that a developer’s inducements for rezoning did not improperly influence the town's decisions, affirming that the town acted in its best interests. Thus, valid zoning actions remain legitimate despite associated agreements if they do not detract from public policy or the municipality's regulatory authority.
The court determined that the developer's promised benefits do not qualify as 'extraneous consideration,' as they are intended to address public needs arising from the development. This leads to two critical questions for assessing challenges to zoning decisions: whether the action contradicts the city's best interests and whether it involves extraneous consideration that could invalidate the rezoning decision. The judge maintained that the undertakings in the memorandum of agreement did not improperly influence the town's decision to rezone for the benefit of McLean, but rather aligned with the town's interests.
To challenge a zoning amendment, the burden of proof lies with the party opposing it, requiring them to show that the zoning regulation is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to public welfare. If the validity of the zoning action is debatable, the local judgment is upheld. In this case, the interveners failed to prove that the rezoning did not serve Belmont's interests. While McLean benefits from the rezoning, it also provides clear advantages to the town, such as preventing unwanted residential development, creating open space, protecting historical features, and providing commitments for affordable housing and recreational benefits. The town's decision to rezone, considering these commitments, was deemed substantially related to the general welfare.
The document asserts that the actions taken by the town in relation to the developer were not improperly influenced and were aligned with the town’s interests. The agreement involved consideration that was relevant to the rezoning of the specific locus and did not constitute extraneous incentives that could undermine the legitimacy of the zoning vote. The consideration was not a gift or unrelated payment but was reasonably connected to the rezoning. The requirement for the consideration to have identifiable relevance to the locus was satisfied, ensuring that the town acted for legitimate zoning reasons.
It clarifies that the rezoning was independent of any agreement with the developer, meaning the town's zoning decision was valid without needing the agreement to be executed beforehand. The document emphasizes that the rezoning does not constitute spot zoning and was not a result of a binding contract with the landowner, as the rezoning acted as a necessary condition for the agreement's enforceability.
Furthermore, there are no public policy violations identified in the commitments associated with the agreement, making it unnecessary to explore the implications of potentially unlawful inducements for rezoning. The conclusion states that the Zoning Act and relevant legal principles permit municipalities to negotiate with private landholders to secure benefits that serve public purposes, provided these benefits relate reasonably to the zoning site. As such, summary judgment in favor of McLean and the town was deemed appropriate.
Judgment is affirmed, with the assumption that the interveners have standing to pursue their objections, as neither McLean nor the town challenged this standing on appeal. The Land Court judge upheld the amendment, excluding a cemetery subdistrict portion disapproved by the Attorney General. The interveners raised procedural defect claims regarding the rezoning, but these claims were not included in their brief and are therefore waived under Mass. R.App. P. 16(a)(4). Commitments from McLean included legal protections for historical features, town acquisition of property interests for open space and a cemetery, a public-private partnership for open space management, tax exemptions for hospital operations, a traffic management agreement, revenue sharing with the town contingent on McLean's land sale revenues exceeding $28 million, affordable housing commitments, and reimbursement of the town’s consultant fees. McLean also agreed to grant the town an option to purchase up to sixteen lots adjacent to the open space at $200,000 each. The proposal stipulated the timing of a $1,500,000 payment and conveyances by McLean, compliance evidence with ancillary agreements during site plan review, and a requirement for site plan review for any change from psychiatric to nonpsychiatric use. The amendments involved increasing the maximum gross floor area in the senior living subdistrict, reducing it in the research and development subdistrict, changing limitations on nonpsychiatric medical uses in the McLean institutional subdistrict, and four amendments regarding the cemetery subdistrict that were disapproved. All agreements in this case have been executed and delivered.
