Durand v. Idc Bellingham, L.L.C.

793 N.E.2d 359 (Mass. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

IDC, which owned a power plant in the town, began discussions with town officials about the possibility of rezoning so that a second plant might ultimately be built. The town administrator told IDC officials that the town was facing an $8 million shortfall in its plans to construct a much needed new high school. Shortly thereafter, the president of IDC publicly announced that IDC would make an $8 million gift to the town if IDC: (1) decided to build the plant; (2) obtained the financing and permits necessary to build the plant; and (3) operated the plant successfully for one year. The town's high school building committee, the town's finance committee, the town's master plan steering committee, and certain town officials voiced strong support for the plant and the zoning change required for its construction on the locus. Some committee members engaged in a campaign to get voters to the town meeting at which the rezoning was to be considered. Residents for and against the proposal to build a plant on the site spoke, and IDC responded to their comments. The zoning article passed by more than the necessary two-thirds vote of the town meeting. Three and one-half years later, several residents living near the parcel brought suit challenging the rezoning. The question before the court is whether the town meeting vote was invalid because the prospective owner of the parcel, IDC Bellingham, LLC (IDC), had offered to give the town $8 million if the rezoning was approved and a power plant was built and operated on the site. Durand (P), eight landowners located near the locus, filed suit in the Land Court against IDC (Ds), the town, the town zoning board of appeals, and the owner of the property. Ps contend that the grant of the five special permits was arbitrary, capricious, lacking in substantial evidence, and ultra vires. They contend the rezoning is void because it constituted illegal 'contract' or 'spot' zoning and because the text of the enacted zoning amendment differed substantially from the text of the proposed amendment. The judge denied summary judgment to Ds and, on his own motion, granted summary judgment to Ps. The judge found that 'contract zoning' had not occurred and 'there would be little doubt that the 1997 rezoning was valid' if the $8 million gift offer had not been made, and proceeded to discuss its implications. He viewed the offer of the gift as an 'extraneous consideration,' because it was not defended as being in mitigation of the impacts of the project, and therefore concluded that it was 'offensive to public policy.' He ultimately concluded that the fact that the offer was made was sufficient, without the necessity of finding that voting town meeting members were influenced by it, to nullify the rezoning vote. This appeal resulted.