Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 2003 · Property

440 Mass. 45 (2003)

Updated July 19, 2026

PropertyZoningrezoningtown meetinglegislative actpolice powercontract zoningconditional zoning

Facts

Bellingham had previously studied ways to increase its tax base, and a town task force had recommended rezoning the locus from agricultural and suburban use to industrial use; a similar rezoning article had narrowly failed in 1995. In 1997, IDC, which held an option on the locus and hoped to build a second power plant there, publicly offered the town an $8 million gift if it built the plant, obtained financing and permits, and operated it successfully for one year. At the May 28, 1997 open town meeting, IDC presented the project and reiterated the offer, the planning board and finance committee recommended passage, and the rezoning article passed by more than the required two-thirds vote. More than three years later, neighboring landowners challenged the rezoning as invalid because of IDC's offer.

Issue

Does a town meeting's rezoning vote become invalid merely because a developer or prospective owner voluntarily offered the town substantial public benefits if the rezoning were approved and the project later built and operated? More specifically, does such an offer constitute an independent ground to set aside an otherwise valid zoning enactment?

Rule

A zoning bylaw enacted by town meeting is a legislative act carrying a strong presumption of validity and will be upheld unless it violates State law or constitutional provisions, or is arbitrary, unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, or general welfare. A voluntary offer of public benefits beyond what may be necessary to mitigate development impacts does not, standing alone, invalidate an otherwise valid zoning enactment. An advance municipal agreement to rezone property before completion of the statutory process under G. L. c. 40A, § 5 may invalidate a rezoning because it evades the required procedure, but no such invalidity exists where the municipality remains unbound before the vote.

🔒

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 Worcester, a developer seeking industrial rezoning for a parcel near existing warehouses publicly promises to donate $3 million to the city's park fund if the rezoning passes and the project is later completed. The city council follows all required rezoning procedures, and the parcel's location and planning history support industrial use.

Neighbors sue to invalidate the rezoning solely because the promised donation was unrelated to mitigating project impacts. What is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a zoning enactment is reviewed for compliance with State law and constitutional limits and for whether it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to public welfare. A voluntary offer of public benefits beyond mitigation does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise valid legislative zoning act. Courts do not set aside such legislation merely because it was encouraged by a promised public benefit.