MARTHA W. ZUCKERMAN vs. TOWN OF HADLEY.

CORDY, J. This case involves a landowner's challenge to the statutory and constitutional validity of a town zoning bylaw of unlimited duration that regulates the number of building permits

Page 512

issued annually for the construction of single family homes. It requires us to confront more broadly the issues of duration and purpose left open in Sturges v. Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246 (1980), in which we held that a "municipality may impose reasonable time limitations on development, at least where those restrictions are temporary and adopted to provide controlled development while the municipality engages in comprehensive planning studies." Id. at 252-253. We now make explicit what was implied in the Sturges case, that, absent exceptional circumstances not present here, restrictions of unlimited duration on a municipality's rate of development are in derogation of the general welfare and thus are unconstitutional. [Note 1]

Background. The facts of the case are largely set forth in the decision of the Land Court. At a special town meeting held in October, 1988, the town of Hadley (town) adopted a rate of development amendment (ROD amendment) to its zoning bylaws. The ROD amendment limits the rate of growth in the town by restricting the number of building permits that may be issued in any given year to a developer of lots held in common ownership, generally requiring development to be spread over a period of up to ten years. [Note 2] As articulated by the town, the bylaw was adopted for the purposes of preserving the town's

Page 513

agricultural land and character, and providing for a "phasing-in" of population growth, thereby allowing time for the town to plan and to expand its public services, consistent with the fiscal constraints of Proposition 2 1/2 , G. L. c. 59, § 21C. [Note 3] The ROD amendment has been in effect for fifteen years. It is undisputed that the town intends the restriction to be of unlimited duration. [Note 4]

Since adopting the ROD amendment in 1988, the town has undertaken various initiatives in response to the pressures imposed by the demands of growth. It has engaged in two planning exercises, the first culminating in 1989 with a growth management plan, [Note 5] and the second in 1998 with an open space and recreation plan. [Note 6], [Note 7] It has also appropriated funds to participate in the Commonwealth's agricultural preservation

Page 514

restriction program, [Note 8] built a new elementary school and a public safety building, hired more full-time officials, and improved its water supply by purchasing land for aquifer protection and enhancing its water delivery system. The town has not, however, adopted many of the measures recommended in the studies that it undertook. It has not prepared or adopted a comprehensive land use plan or a community open space bylaw (as recommended in the 1998 study); it has not effected a major overhaul of its zoning bylaws (as recommended in the 1989 study); it has not adopted a cluster development bylaw (as recommended in the 1989 study), increased minimum lot sizes in agricultural districts to 80,000 square feet (as recommended in the 1987 study), or hired a full-time planner (also recommended in the 1987 study). [Note 9]

Since 1986, the plaintiff, Martha Zuckerman (or her husband), has owned an approximately sixty-six acre parcel of land located in an agricultural-residential use district within the town. The zoning bylaw applicable to such districts permits, as of right, detached one-family dwellings, agriculture, and the raising of stock. Under the subdivision control law, G. L. c. 41,

Page 515

§§ 81K-81GG, in effect in Hadley, Zuckerman's property could accommodate a large subdivision of approximately forty single-family homes. The ROD amendment, however, limits development of her property to four units a year for ten years. See note 2, supra.

Claiming that it is not economically feasible to sequence the development of her property over a ten-year period, [Note 10] Zuckerman brought an action in the Land Court seeking a declaration that the ROD amendment was invalid and unconstitutional, or alternatively that it constituted a taking for which she must be compensated. The judge, ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, relied on Sturges v. Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246 (1980), in concluding that "time limitations on development must be temporary and must be dependent on the completion and implementation of comprehensive planning studies." [Note 11] Finding that the ROD amendment created a restriction on development of unlimited duration and that the town had failed to implement many of the measures recommended in the planning studies, the judge held the ROD amendment unconstitutional and entered judgment for Zuckerman. The town appealed, and we transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion.

Discussion. As we observed in Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at 253, "[f]rom the wide scope of the purposes of The Zoning Act [G. L. c. 40A], it is apparent that the Legislature intended to permit cities and towns to adopt any and all zoning provisions which are constitutionally permissible," subject only to "limitations expressly stated in that act (see, e.g., G. L. c. 40A, § 3) or in other controlling legislation." Like the Land Court judge, we

Page 516

find no statutory bar to the adoption of the ROD amendment, and hence move directly to the constitutional question. See id.

The classic recitation of the constitutional test is whether a zoning bylaw is "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926). [Note 12] See Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at 256; Sinn v. Selectmen of Acton, 357 Mass. 606, 609 (1970); Wilbur v. Newton, 302 Mass. 38, 39 (1938). More specifically, due process requires that a zoning bylaw bear a rational relation to a legitimate zoning purpose. In our review, we make every presumption in favor of a zoning bylaw, and we measure its constitutional validity against any permissible public objective that the legislative body may plausibly be said to have been pursuing. Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at 256-257. "[I]f its reasonableness is fairly debatable, [a zoning bylaw] will be sustained." Id. at 256.

In the Sturges case, we upheld a restrictive rate of development zoning bylaw adopted by the town of Chilmark to control the rate of growth for a limited period to allow time for the town to carry out various planning studies and to implement various measures necessary to protect the water supply and to ensure proper sewage disposal. [Note 13] Id. at 259-260. Hadley asks us to expand that holding to zoning bylaws intended to control growth for an unlimited duration to assist towns in better managing their fiscal resources and in preserving their character, in this case, agricultural.

Page 517

The town acknowledges that the purposes justifying the bylaw in Chilmark were short lived and specific, observes that the bylaw's relationship to those purposes depended on its temporary nature, but concludes that restraining the rate of development is a zoning tool available whenever, as in Chilmark, it bears an adequate relation to a legitimate purpose. So prefaced, the town argues that the pressures of growth justifying the ROD amendment in Hadley are indefinite in duration and substantial in their potential effect on the town's finances and character, and that the unlimited duration of the ROD amendment is therefore consistent with the purposes that motivated it. In essence, the town contends that, so long as the ROD amendment continues to limit growth over time, creating the buffer that the town considers necessary to absorb an increasing population while continuing to preserve those characteristics and to provide those public facilities that make Hadley a desirable place to live, the amendment is in the public interest and advances legitimate zoning purposes, and thus passes constitutional muster.

We recognize the enormous pressures faced by rural and suburban towns presented with demands of development, and that towns may seek to prevent or to curtail the visual blight and communal degradation that growth unencumbered by guidance or restraint may occasion. In this respect, however, Hadley is no different from other towns facing the pressures attendant to an influx of growth. Like all such towns, Hadley may, in an effort to preserve its character and natural resources, adopt any combination of zoning bylaws, [Note 14] and participate in a wide variety of State-enacted programs, [Note 15] that may, as a practical matter, limit growth by physically limiting the amount of land

Page 518

available for development. Hadley may also slow the rate of its growth within reasonable time limits as we explained in Sturges v. Chilmark, supra, and Collura v. Arlington, 367 Mass. 881 (1975), to allow it to engage in planning and preparation for growth. What it may not do is adopt a zoning bylaw for the purpose of limiting the rate of growth for an indefinite or unlimited period. [Note 16] Restraining the rate of growth for a period of unlimited duration, and not for the purpose of conducting studies or planning for future growth, is inherently and unavoidably detrimental to the public welfare, and therefore not a legitimate zoning purpose. [Note 17]

Rate of development bylaws such as the one at issue here are

Page 519

restrictions not on how land ultimately may be used, but on when certain classes of property owners may use their land. Where classic zoning bylaws keep the pig out of the parlor, see Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 (1926), rate of development bylaws tell the farmer how many new pigs may be in the barnyard each year. In their intent and in their effect, rate of development bylaws reallocate population growth from one town to another, and impose on other communities the increased burdens that one community seeks to avoid. Through zoning bylaws, a town may allow itself breathing room to plan for the channeling of normal growth; it may not turn that breathing room into a choke hold against further growth. Simon v. Needham, 311 Mass. 560, 565 (1942) ("zoning by-law cannot be adopted for the purpose of setting up a barrier against the influx of thrifty and respectable citizens who desire to live there and who are able and willing to erect homes upon lots upon which fair and reasonable restrictions have been imposed"). Despite the perceived benefits that enforced isolation may bring to a town facing a new wave of permanent home seekers, it does not serve the general welfare of the Commonwealth to permit one particular town to deflect that wave onto its neighbors. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra at 390 (zoning regulation invalid "where the general public interest would so far outweigh the interest of the municipality that the municipality would not be allowed to stand in the way"). Johnson v. Edgartown, 425 Mass. 117, 120 (1997) (general welfare transcends one town's "parochial interests"). See Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm., 363 Mass. 339, 384 (1973). Accord Associated Home Builders of the Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582, 607, 610- 611 (1976) (requiring analysis of general welfare in light of all affected in

Page 520

region). As concisely stated by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, "prevent[ing] the entrance of newcomers in order to avoid burdens upon the public services and facilities . . . is not a valid public purpose." Beck v. Raymond, 118 N.H. 793, 801 (1978). [Note 18] Accord National Land & Inv. Co. v. Easttown Bd. of Adjustment, 419 Pa. 504, 532 (1965) ("zoning ordinance whose primary purpose is to prevent the entrance of newcomers in order to avoid future burdens, economic and otherwise, upon the administration of public services and facilities can not be held valid").

There is little doubt that the initial adoption of Hadley's ROD amendment appropriately sought to enable the town better to plan for growth and to adopt programs and other zoning measures to preserve its agricultural resources and character. But fifteen years have passed, and the town has had more than ample time to fulfil that legitimate purpose. Neither the desire for better fiscal management nor the revenue-raising limitations imposed by Proposition 2 1/2 , G. L. c. 59, § 21C, is a proper basis on which to adopt a zoning ordinance intended to limit growth or the rate of growth in a particular town for the indefinite future. [Note 19] See 122 Main St. Corp. v. Brockton, 323 Mass. 646, 650 (1949) ("not within the scope of [zoning] to enact zoning regulations for the purpose of assisting a municipality . . . to inflate its taxable revenue"); Simon v. Needham, supra at 566 ("zoning by-law cannot be used primarily as a device to maintain a low tax rate"). Except when used to give communities breathing room for periods reasonably necessary for the purposes of growth planning generally, or resource problem solving specifically, as determined by the specific circumstances of each case, see Sturges v. Chilmark, supra at 257, such zoning ordinances do not serve a permissible

Page 521

public purpose, and are therefore unconstitutional.

The judgment of the Land Court is affirmed. [Note 20]

So ordered.