In our July 2021 Newsletter we discussed a Land Court case captioned, Bellingham Massachusetts Self Service Storage, LLC, et al. v. Town of Bellingham et al, wherein the Land Court found a 2019 zoning amendment that changed the zoning districts of certain properties invalid due to the failure of the Petitioner (i.e., the individual who brought the zoning amendment before Town Meeting for approval) to comply with the strict procedural requirements set forth in G.L. c. 40A, § 5, first para.

In the Bellingham matter, although the planning board expressed support for the zoning amendment, the amendment was initiated by a town resident who was not statutorily authorized to file the zoning amendment.

Subsequent to our article last year, the Town of Bellingham (Town) appealed the Land Court judgment claiming that the 2019 zoning bylaw and zoning map amendment (collectively, zoning amendment) was valid because while the Planning Board did not initiate (originally file) the request for zoning amendment, they voted to recommend it, and such action complied with the Zoning Act.

The Appeals Court disagreed and held that G.L. c. 40A, § 5 is explicit regarding who may initiate a zoning amendment. In the Bellingham matter, although the planning board expressed support for the zoning amendment, the amendment was initiated by a town resident who was not statutorily authorized to file the zoning amendment.

This case now cements who and what procedures must be followed in order to seek a zoning amendment under G.L. c. 40A, § 5.

A copy of Bellingham Massachusetts Self Service Storage, LLC, et al. v. Town of Bellingham et al. 101 Mass.App.Ct. 1108 (2022) (Rule 23 Decision) can be reviewed here.