## Facts

- Kingston adopted a zoning bylaw amendment under G.L. c. 40R creating a “smart growth” overlay district to encourage mixed-use, higher-density housing with affordability components.
- The town sought and obtained a letter of eligibility from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), which administers state incentive and density bonus payments tied to developable land and projected units.
- After Kingston’s application but before town meeting adoption, a substantial portion of the proposed district was designated “priority habitat” for rare species under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and regulations.
- The priority-habitat designation reduced the amount of land realistically available for development at c. 40R densities because development would be subject to additional environmental constraints and review.
- Nearby landowners sued in the Land Court under G.L. c. 240, § 14A, alleging the town failed to update developable-land calculations and failed to inform DHCD, making the bylaw an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of zoning power.
- The Land Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining validity claim, and the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) took the appeal on its own motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the town’s failure to revise developable-land calculations and to notify DHCD of the priority-habitat designation rendered the c. 40R zoning amendment invalid as an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of zoning power.
2. Whether misstatements or omissions in information provided to DHCD under c. 40R and related regulations automatically invalidate a local zoning enactment.
3. Whether the challengers met their burden, given the presumption of zoning validity, to show the amendment lacked a substantial relation to legitimate land use objectives.

## Decision

- The SJC affirmed summary judgment for the defendants and the dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held that the town should have corrected its developable-land figures, but the omission did not invalidate the zoning amendment.
- The court ruled that inaccuracies affecting DHCD’s incentive-payment calculations did not, without more, show the bylaw was arbitrary or unreasonable under traditional zoning review.
- The court emphasized that adoption of a c. 40R overlay is enabling and does not itself authorize development that violates MESA or other environmental requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning enactments carry a strong presumption of validity; a challenger must show the measure is arbitrary or unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- A c. 40R smart-growth district is not self-executing; projects within the district must still comply with applicable environmental laws and permitting regimes, including MESA.
- Noncompliance or inaccuracies in c. 40R/DHCD informational submissions generally bear on state incentives and DHCD administration rather than the legal validity of the municipal bylaw, absent a showing of zoning irrationality.
- Environmental constraints identified after adoption of an overlay district are addressed at the project-approval stage through independent environmental review, which may limit, condition, or preclude particular development.

## Conclusion

The SJC upheld Kingston’s c. 40R smart-growth overlay, concluding that the town’s failure to update developable-land information and notify DHCD did not, by itself, make the zoning amendment an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of zoning power where environmental protections remained enforceable and the bylaw still served legitimate planning and housing purposes.


DiRico v. Town of Kingston, 458 Mass. 83, 934 N.E.2d 208 (2010)