BRICE ESTATES, INC. vs. TOWN OF RUTLAND

Plaintiff Brice Estates, Inc. filed this action in June 4, 2019, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 240A, §14A. Brice Estates asserted in Count I of its complaint that the Town of Rutland's Development Rate Limitation Bylaw (the "Bylaw") is invalid and unenforceable pursuant to the "Constitution and Law and Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Embedded in Count I, which the parties agree constitutes a Count II, is a second claim by Brice Estates that it's exempt from the Bylaw under G.L. c. 40A, §6.

The Town of Rutland appeared in this case on June 10, 2019. On July 11, 2019, Brice Estates moved for partial summary judgment on Count II of its complaint. Following the filing of that motion, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Count II, with prejudice and without attorney's fees or costs, with both parties waiving all rights of appeal.

In November 2019, Brice Estates moved for summary judgment on the rest of Count I. The Town opposed the motion. The Court heard oral arguments from the parties on February 13, 2020. For the reasons set forth in the Decision issued this day, the Court GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Brice Estates's motion. The Court further:

A. ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECLARES that judgment hereby enters (i) in FAVOR of Brice Estates, Inc. and AGAINST the Town of Rutland (the "Town"), as to those parts of Count I of Brice Estates, Inc.'s Complaint that challenge §§94.C, 95.C, and 98 of the Town's Zoning Bylaw (the "Zoning Bylaw), as adopted by the Town of Rutland's Town Meeting on May 11, 2019; and (ii) in FAVOR of the Town, and AGAINST Brice Estates, Inc., on the remainder of Count I of Brice Estates, Inc.'s Complaint;

B. DISMISSES with prejudice so-called Count II of Brice Estates, Inc.'s Complaint, pursuant to the parties' Stipulation docketed August 15, 2019;

C. ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECLARES that the term "affirmative vote" in §98 of the Zoning Bylaw means a two-thirds affirmative vote;

D. ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECLARES that §94.C of the Zoning Bylaw violates M.G.L c. 40A, §4, and thus this Court STRIKES §94.C from the Zoning Bylaw (including the references to §94.C that appear in §94.A and §96 of the Zoning Bylaw);

E. ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECLARES that §95.C of the Zoning Bylaw violates c. 40A, §4, and thus this Court STRIKES §95.C from the Zoning Bylaw (including the reference to §95.C that appears in the first sentence of §95 of the Zoning Bylaw); and

F. ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECLARES that the Town lawfully adopted §§91-99 of the Zoning Bylaw, as construed under paragraph (C) above, and as modified by paragraphs (D) and (E) above, and that as so construed and so modified, the Town may enforce those provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.

SO ORDERED.