Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Property

PropertyZoningMunicipal Land Usezoningrezoningtown meetingcontract zoningconditional zoning

Facts

The town of Bellingham had previously studied ways to expand its tax base and had identified the locus as a candidate for rezoning from agricultural and suburban use to industrial use. In 1997, IDC discussed building a second power plant on the locus and publicly offered to give the town $8 million if the plant was built, financed and permitted, and operated successfully for one year. At the May 28, 1997 open town meeting, IDC presented the project and repeated the offer, the planning board and finance committee recommended passage, and the zoning article rezoning the locus passed by more than the required two-thirds vote. More than three years later, nearby landowners challenged the rezoning, arguing that the gift offer rendered the vote invalid.

Issue

Does a town meeting's legislative vote to rezone land become invalid merely because the developer voluntarily offered the town $8 million if the rezoning were approved and the proposed plant were later built and operated? Relatedly, did the offer create an unlawful agreement that violated the zoning amendment procedures required by G. L. c. 40A, § 5?

Rule

A zoning enactment adopted by town meeting is a legislative act presumed valid and will be set aside only if it violates State law or constitutional limits, or if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, or general welfare. A developer's voluntary offer of public benefits, even if not tied to project impacts, does not by itself invalidate an otherwise valid rezoning. Rezoning may be invalid if a municipality makes an advance agreement to rezone before the vote or before complying with G. L. c. 40A, § 5, because that would evade the required statutory process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a town meeting in western Massachusetts, voters in Amherst considered rezoning a tract near existing light-industrial land from rural residential to industrial use. Before the vote, Pine Harbor Energy, which hoped to build a facility there, publicly announced it would donate $5 million to Amherst for any municipal purpose if the project were later financed, permitted, built, and operated for one year; the town followed all required hearing and voting procedures.

Nearby homeowners sue, arguing that the rezoning is void solely because the donation was an improper inducement unrelated to project impacts. How should a court rule?

Explanation. A town meeting’s rezoning vote is a legislative act strongly presumed valid. Under the majority opinion, the proper inquiry is whether the enactment violated State law or constitutional limits, or was arbitrary, unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to public health, safety, or general welfare. A voluntary offer of public benefits, standing alone, is not an independent ground to invalidate an otherwise valid rezoning, even if the offer is not tied to project impacts. (Derived from Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC (n.d.).)