CHAPA Amicus Brief in Terrence Marengi v. 6 Forest Road, LLC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”) and all the named amici curiae with a shared interest in this case, as stated herein, (collectively, “Amici”), submit this Amici Curiae Brief in support of Defendants-Appellees and to address how a new provision of the state Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A, § 17, ¶ 3, applies to plaintiffs challenging permits issued pursuant to G.L. c. 40B (“Chapter 40B”).

CHAPA is a nonprofit organization devoted to affordable housing and community development in the Commonwealth.  CHAPA members include nonprofit and for-profit developers, local housing providers and advocates, municipal officials, lenders, property managers, architects, consultants, homeowners, tenants, local planners, and others.

     Since 1967, CHAPA’s mission has been:

to encourage the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals and to foster diverse and sustainable communities through planning and community development.

See Citizens’ Housing & Planning Association, About CHAPA, https://www.chapa.org/about (last visited August 29, 2022).

DHCD is a department within the Massachusetts Office of the Housing and Economic Development whose mission includes the promotion of safe, decent affordable housing opportunities.  As part of its mission, DHCD administers numerous programs that fund affordable housing, as well as programs that encourage housing development. 

DHCD implements and furthers the statutory scheme of G.L. c. 40B through its promulgation of regulations, as well as its administration of subsidy programs that enable developers to seek a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40B.  DHCD joins this brief in support of its mission, which is frustrated by frivolous appeals that unduly delay and interfere with affordable housing development.

CHAPA, an active participant in the legislative process that led to the adoption of many zoning reforms enacted in of Chapter 358 of the Acts of 2020 (the “Act”), DHCD and the other named Amici, which all have an interest in encouraging the development of safe and affordable housing in Massachusetts, submit this Amici Curiae Brief in furtherance of their mission and to raise two points for the Court’s consideration: 1) While crafting the Bond Language, as defined below, the Legislature was aware that “permits and approvals” granted pursuant to Chapter 40B are equivalent to “a special permit, variance or site plan”; and 2) the historic context and legislative history of the Act indicate that the Bond Language was meant to apply to Chapter 40B abutter appeals and, if the Bond Language is deemed not to apply to the appeal of a comprehensive permit, meritless appeals will continue to inhibit the legislative intent and policy promoted by the Act.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

     2Life Communities Inc., Abundant Housing MA, Inc., The Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts, Lower Cape Cod Community Development Corporation d/b/a the Community Development Partnership; GBREB, Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation, Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc., and The Community Builders, Inc., hereby state that each such entity is a Massachusetts not-for-profit organization that has no parent corporation and no publicly traded corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. 

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTIONS

     Neither any party nor any party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part.  Likewise, neither any party nor any party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.  None of the Amici nor their counsel represents or has represented any of the parties to the present appeal in any other proceeding involving similar issues, proceedings, or transactions.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

     This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of a new provision of the state Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A (“Chapter 40A”), § 17, ¶ 3, enacted to encourage the construction of more affordable housing in the Commonwealth and to deter meritless challenges to permits to build that housing issued in accordance with Chapter 40A and Chapter 40B. Any person aggrieved by the issuance of a comprehensive permit pursuant to Chapter 40B may make an appeal to court “as provided in” G.L. c. 40A, § 17.  G.L. c. 40B, § 21. The addition of paragraph 3 to Chapter 40A, § 17 therefore impacts appeals made under each, interrelated, statutory scheme.   

Effective January 14, 2021, the Act was passed as “emergency legislation” to “promote economic opportunity.” St. 2020, c. 358.  The Act includes several amendments to Chapter 40A intended to promote housing production through local zoning reform.

Section 25 of the Act added a new zoning reform measure, long advocated for by CHAPA, affordable housing advocates, and the real estate industry.  That measure, now codified as the third paragraph of G.L. c. 40A, § 17, provides:

The court, in its discretion, may require a plaintiff in an action under this section appealing a decision to approve a special permit, variance or site plan to post a surety or cash bond in an amount of not more than $50,000 to secure the payment of costs if the court finds that the harm to the defendant or to the public interest resulting from delays caused by the appeal outweighs the financial burden of the surety or cash bond on the plaintiffs. The court shall consider the relative merits of the appeal and the relative financial means of the plaintiff and the defendant.

(St. 2020, c.358, § 25) (hereinafter, the “Bond Language”). 

Plaintiffs-Appellants challenge the order of the Superior Court (Karp, J.) requiring that they collectively post a $35,000 bond pursuant to G.L. c.40A, §17 and G.L. c. 40B § 21 to secure the costs of their appeal.  Reviewing the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petition under G.L. c. 231, § 118, ¶ 1, the Single Justice of the Appeals Court (Neyman, J.) granted permission for Plaintiffs-Appellants to take an interlocutory appeal of the bond order to a full panel of the Appeals Court, but refused to vacate the bond order because “the plaintiffs have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the recently added bond provision of G.L.c.40A, §17, is inapplicable to an appeal from an allowance of a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. c. 40B.” Terrence Marengi & others v. 6 Forest Road, LLC & others, Appeals Court Dkt. #7, No. 22-J-0174.  The case was transferred to this Court sua sponte.

Amici submit this brief to explain why the Single Justice correctly concluded that the Bond Language of G.L. c. 40A, § 17, applies to appeals of comprehensive permits issued under Chapter 40B.  The plain text of the provision, its legislative history, and the aim of the Legislature in enacting the Act demonstrate that the provision was written and intended to facilitate the prompt resolution of Chapter 40B appeals and, in turn, to promote the development of affordable housing in Massachusetts.

ARGUMENT

1. While crafting the Bond Language, the Legislature was aware that “permits and approvals” granted pursuant to Chapter 40B are equivalent to “a special permit, variance or site plan.”   

The plain text of the Bond Language, which gives the Superior Court discretion to require a plaintiff “appealing a decision to approve a special permit, variance or site plan” to post a bond, covers appeals of Chapter 40B comprehensive permits.  This Court has recognized that the appeal procedures set forth in Section 17 apply to the judicial appeal of comprehensive permits.  Standerwick v. ZBA of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 28 (2006) (“[T]he Legislature chose in G.L. c. 40B, § 21, to incorporate the judicial review procedure established in G.L. c. 40A, § 17”). Plaintiffs under Chapter 40B have a higher burden to establish standing than under Chapter 40A, and this difference is based on the policy protected by Chapter 40B, which includes overriding certain local interest in order to further the Commonwealth’s affordable housing goals.  Id. at 28, 32 (holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the comprehensive permit because their claim that the affordable housing project would diminish their property values was “not a concern that the G. L. c. 40B regulatory scheme is intended to protect,” and therefore not an injury that could confer standing).  Here, the interests furthered by the Act’s Bond Language is aligned with Chapter 40B: the production of housing that Massachusetts residents can afford.

Although the Plaintiffs-Appellants portray a comprehensive permit as a form of relief that is detached and distinct from “a special permit, variance or site plan” approval, their argument mischaracterizes the meaning and function of a comprehensive permit, as well as how this Court has interpreted and applied Chapter 40B, § 21.

G.L. c. 40B, § 21, provides in relevant part, with emphasis added:

The board of appeals … shall have the same power to issue permits or approvals as any local board or official who would otherwise act with respect to such application, including but not limited to the power to attach to said permit or approval conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials.

In 135 Wells Ave., LLC v. Hous. Appeals Comm., 478 Mass. 346, 354-55 (2017), this Court made clear that “special permit, variance or site plan” approvals are “permits and approvals” incorporated into Chapter 40B review.  The Court observed, “there is little reason to turn to dictionary definitions in interpreting the statutory language here, as the language of G. L. c. 40B § 21, itself defines the term ‘permits or approvals’ in several respects. The statute first delineates the types of local agencies that may grant permits or approvals (i.e., ‘local board[s] or official[s]’), and then enumerates the types of authorizations that fall within the statutory meaning of permits or approvals, (e.g., ‘conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials’).” 135 Wells Ave., LLC, 478 Mass. at 354-55 (emphasis added). See also Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Hous. Appeals Comm., 457 Mass. 748, 755 (2010) (in issuing a comprehensive permit the board of appeals assumes “the same scope of authority” to grant or condition relief as the local board it replaces); Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Hous. Appeals Comm., 451 Mass. 35, 40 (2008) (broadly interpreting “permits and approvals”). The Legislature was aware that “permits and approvals” granted pursuant to Chapter 40B are equivalent to “a special permit, variance or site plan” noted in the Bond Language.  See Andover Sav. Bank v. Comm’r of Revenue, 387 Mass. 229, 241 (1982) (“The Legislature is presumed to be aware of any effects that a judicial decision may have on the operation of a statute.”).

In other words, the comprehensive permit is a mechanism by which a board of appeals can act as a “one stop shop” where an affordable housing developer may obtain all local permits and approvals.  The components of relief (i.e., variances and special permits) are subsumed into the comprehensive permit.  As evidenced by the Salisbury comprehensive permit in this case, site plan review as dictated by the Town Zoning Bylaw and variances (waivers) were incorporated into the zoning board’s comprehensive review.  Town of Salisbury, Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Comprehensive Permit Decision (August 26, 2021), Ex. A.

The connection between Chapter 40B and the Bond Language is further strengthened by the Legislature’s reference to “site plan” review in the Bond Language.   Before the Act was adopted, the term “site plan” was not used in Chapter 40A. In contrast, site plan review is specifically referenced as a board of appeal function in G.L. c. 40B, § 21. 

In specifying that plaintiffs appealing a decision to approve a “site plan” could be required to post a bond, G.L. c. 40A, § 17, the Legislature thus plainly referenced the “site plan” review conducted in accordance with G.L. c. 40B, § 21.  Accordingly, the “permits and approvals” granted pursuant to Chapter 40B are equivalent to “a special permit, variance or site plan” noted in the Bond Language.   

2. The historic context and legislative history of the Act indicate that the Bond Language was meant to apply to Chapter 40B abutter appeals.
   
   1. The Legislature was aware that abutter appeal reform, for projects permitted under Chapter 40B, is essential to increasing affordable housing production.

Data provided directly to the Legislature, as well as news reports documenting the struggle of affordable housing developers, support the conclusion that the Bond Language applies to appeals of comprehensive permits issued under Chapter 40B.  The necessity of abutter appeal reform to affordable housing production was raised with the Legislature in 2014 when the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (“MHP”) provided the “Unlocking the Commonwealth” report (the “MHP Report”) to the General Court.  The MHP Report was designed as a tool to develop new housing growth policies in the Commonwealth.^[1]  The MHP Report identified Massachusetts’ increasing housing prices, emphasized the need to grow housing supply, and predicted that the housing crisis would only worsen with time.[2]

The Report was right.  Median sale price for individual units (single family homes and condos) in Massachusetts increased by 51% from 2014 to 2021 (growing from $309K to $468K), according to Warren Group data, sourced from registry of deeds records, and tabulated by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.  According to the American Community Survey, published by the United States Census Bureau, median contract rent in Massachusetts increased from $972 in 2014 to $1,201 in 2019, an increase of 23.5%.^[3] 

One of the eight Legislative recommendations in the MHP Report was to “reduce or eliminate groundless land use appeals,” which delay the construction of much-needed housing.  As the Report described:

Land use appeals without underlying merit are frequently used as a tactic to delay and obstruct housing development. These appeals have been taken all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and in some cases have delayed worthwhile housing development projects for a decade or longer. In some cases developers have withdrawn permit applications because they cannot afford the cost and delay of fighting appeals. In other cases settlement of groundless abutter appeals has caused developers to needlessly downsize worthy, community-supported projects….^[4]

Even a cursory review of Chapter 40B’s over 50-year history indicates that meritless lawsuits have significantly delayed dozens of worthwhile projects.  “In communities west of Boston such as Brookline, Needham, Newton, and Waltham, conflicts between developers applying for permits under 40B, and town residents who wish to block them have become a trend.”[5]  Despite the prevalence of such actions, abutter appeals are rarely successful on the merits.

Anderson v. Community Housing Resources Inc., Docket No. 21 PS 000324, Mass. Land Ct. (2021), is an excellent example of a housing project that was supported by state and local officials but was almost thwarted by a small group of residents.  In the case, Judge Rubin granted the Defendants’ request that the Bond Language be applied to plaintiffs appealing the grant of a Chapter 40B comprehensive permit.  The project, known as the “Cloverleaf,” is planned for a site along Route 6 in the Town of Truro, which was donated to the Town by the State Department of Transportation for the development of affordable housing.[6]  The project is also supported by the financial assistance of the Truro Affordable Housing Trust.[7]  After fifteen months of hearings before the Truro zoning board of appeals, the developer was granted a Chapter 40B approval.  The developer and Town were then faced with well over a year of litigation, which was finally settled after Judge Rubin’s bond order.  Without the bond order, the case might have gone on for another year or more.  Still, “[d]uring the years that the Cloverleaf plan was being contested, construction prices inflated from $12 million to $19 million.”[8]

In cases like Anderson, opponents of affordable housing projects can occasion delay at the local level through threats of litigation until the project proponent can no longer sustain its efforts.  This happened, for example, to Harborlight Community Partners (“Harborlight”), which proposed a Chapter 40B development project in Hamilton, Massachusetts.  After three years of working with the community and political leaders, and attending approximately 275 local meetings regarding the project, Harborlight abandoned its’ efforts because of the serious threat of an abutter appeal.[9]  In such appeals, a developer like Harborlight may incur  to do loss of financing, rising interest rates and material costs, and attorneys’ fees.  The developer may, and indeed frequently does, run out of resources before the case is decided on the merits, resulting in another lost opportunity to build more affordable housing across the Commonwealth.   

1. 2. Zoning reform bills predating the Act included similar bond language and were intended to address meritless appeals of permits and approvals issued pursuant to Chapter 40B.

A number of bills that predate the Act were introduced to address affordable housing production by amending G.L. c. 40A, § 17 to deter meritless appeals.  These bills did not mention Chapter 40B or “comprehensive permits” because it was not necessary— as prescribed by G.L. c. 40B, § 21, individual plaintiffs appealing a comprehensive permit must do so via G.L. c. 40A, § 17. 

An Act Relative to Housing Reform, filed earlier in the 2019–2020 Legislative Session, included a bond provision that, like the Act, applied to “appeals of decisions approving special permits, variances and site plans.”[10]  Expert testimony supporting the Act Relative to Housing Reform specifically addressed the real threat and consequences of groundless abutter challenges to Chapter 40B projects.  In addition to the example regarding a project in Hamilton, referenced above, Harborlight’s Executive Director also testified regarding a second Chapter 40B project that was delayed for over four years due to an abutter appeal.  The abutter appeal forced Harborlight to spend well over $300,000 in legal fees before the case was settled out of court.[11]

Also in 2019, Representative Joseph McGonagle and Senator Julian Cyr filed the abutter appeal language as standalone pieces of legislation.  The House and Senate bills both would have permitted a reviewing court to order a surety or cash bond “in appeals of decisions approving special permits, variances and site plans.”[12]

Still earlier in 2017, Senator Harriette Chandler and Representatives Sarah Peake and Stephen Kulik filed comprehensive zoning reform bills—designed to increase affordable housing production—that included similar abutter appeal reform language.[13]  In the 2015–2016 Legislative Session, the Senate passed An Act promoting Housing and Sustainable Development. Like the bills that followed, the proposed abutter appeal reform language applied to plaintiffs challenging special permits, variances and site plans.[14]

None of the above bills specifically mentioned Chapter 40B appeals because it was not necessary.  The plain language of G.L. c.40B, § 21, compels a prospective plaintiff to file an appeal “as provided in” G.L. c. 40A, § 17.  G.L. c.40B, § 21.  All of the above bills recognized that increased housing production could be best achieved by way of both zoning reform and meaningful limitations on frivolous lawsuits. 

1. 3. Sponsors of the Bond Language emphasized the need to address the Commonwealth’s affordable housing crisis through zoning reform.

The Bond Language was added to the Economic Development Bill by S.2842, 191st Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2020), Amendment 1, filed by Senator Brendan Crighton.  In his remarks supporting Amendment 1, Senator Crighton explained:

We are facing a housing crisis in Massachusetts. We produce half of the housing that was produced annually in the 1960s and 1970s. Rents have increased more than 75% since 2000. Single family home prices have increased more than any other state since 1980. 25% of tenants pay more than half of their income on rent… Our housing crisis was not created overnight, and it will not be solved by one piece of legislation. But this amendment is a start.

Hearing on S.2842 Before the Massachusetts Senate, 191st Gen. Ct., statement of State Senator Brendan Crighton, 07/29/2020 Full Formal Session.  Senator Eric Lesser, who spoke in favor of Amendment 1, including the Bond Language, stated the purpose of the Amendment in simple terms: “Housing is too expensive in Massachusetts. People cannot afford to live here…”  Hearing on S.2842 Before the Massachusetts Senate, 191st Gen. Ct., statement of State Senator Eric Lesser, 07/29/2020 Full Formal Session.

Since the Bond Language was adopted, its proponents have weighed in on its meaning and scope.  Senator Julian Cyr, who filed the 2019, standalone,  abutter appeal reform language referenced above,[15] commented on the Order to Post Bond issued in Anderson v. Community Housing Resources Inc.  Senator Cyr lauded the application of the Bond Language to the Chapter 40B action: “‘For me, this reiterates the value of the action the legislature took to limit frivolous lawsuits that only serve to advance Nimbyism.’ Senator Cyr continued, ‘For too long, people who had no good reason to oppose projects were able to needlessly delay them.’”[16]

The legislative intent of Chapter 40B is well established as an intent to “[minimize] lengthy and expensive delays occasioned by court battles commenced by those seeking to exclude affordable housing from their own neighborhoods.” Standerwick, 447 Mass. at 29.  As noted previously, expensive delays and court battles still plague many Chapter 40B developments, even those with extensive community support.  The intent of the Act, and the Bond Language in particular, is to address the undersupply of housing in Massachusetts through abutter appeal reform.  Given Chapter 40B’s essential role, in the past and future, in spurring housing production, it would frustrate the purpose of the Act were the Bond Language not applied to appeals of Chapter 40B decisions. 

Chapter 40B has long been the driving force of affordable housing development in the Commonwealth.  As one article explained, “For suburbanites, affordable housing is still something built in someone else's backyard. Chapter 40B is the only law on the books that can change that — and few laws are as likely to have as much of an effect among the apple orchards and culs-de-sac north, west, and south of Boston.”[17]  Without the application of the Bond Language to cases seeking review of Chapter 40B permits, meritless appeals will continue to frustrate the policy promoted by the Act and the Legislature’s goal of encouraging more affordable housing developments in Massachusetts. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the plain language of the Act and Chapter 40B, the legislative intent of the Act’s zoning reform provisions, and the role of Chapter 40B in meeting the Commonwealth’s housing production goals, the Bond Language applies to appeals made pursuant to Chapter 40B. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the Superior Court’s Order construing the Bond language to apply to Chapter 40B appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

CITIZENS’ HOUSING AND PLANNING ASSOCIATION

By its attorneys,

/s/ Karla L. Chaffee

Karla L. Chaffee

Jeffrey Sacks

NIXON PEABODY LLP