## Facts

- A developer owned about 82 contiguous acres in a town, including a 37-acre tract proposed for rezoning from residential (R-30) to commercial (C-60) to allow a shopping center and multiplex cinema.
- The rezoned tract lay along a major roadway and was contiguous to existing C-60 land amid substantial nearby retail uses (including large stores and malls).
- Neighboring homeowners from an adjacent municipality challenged the amendment; their property did not directly abut the rezoned tract and was separated by a 14.5-acre portion of the developer’s land that remained residential.
- The rezoning proposal included mitigation measures: a no-build buffer area and restrictive covenants/deed restrictions intended to reduce impacts on nearby residences.
- The developer also committed to payments for traffic and infrastructure improvements, including a payment to the town based on proposed retail square footage and a separate payment to the State highway agency for off-site road work.
- The town adopted the rezoning article by the required supermajority vote at town meeting; it received Attorney General approval and statutory notice was posted.
- The homeowners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging unlawful spot zoning, unlawful contract zoning, and inconsistency with the town’s master plan.

## Issues

1. Whether rezoning the 37-acre tract from residential to commercial constituted unlawful spot zoning.
2. Whether the rezoning was invalid contract zoning because it was allegedly exchanged for mitigation payments, covenants, and other developer commitments.
3. Whether inconsistency with a municipal master plan rendered the zoning amendment invalid.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment upholding the zoning amendment.
- The court held the rezoning was a valid legislative act reasonably related to public welfare and the purposes of the zoning enabling act.
- The court rejected the spot-zoning challenge because the tract was not an isolated commercial “island” and fit the established commercial character of the corridor.
- The court rejected the contract-zoning challenge, treating the developer’s mitigation commitments as impact-related measures that did not unlawfully bind the municipality’s legislative discretion.
- The court held that divergence from the master plan did not invalidate an otherwise rational, properly enacted zoning amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning amendments are presumed valid; a court will uphold them if they are not arbitrary and bear a rational relationship to legitimate zoning objectives and public welfare.
- Spot zoning is not established merely because a rezoning benefits a single owner; invalidity turns on whether the change is inconsistent with the area’s character and lacks a public-welfare justification.
- Contract zoning is impermissible when a municipality bargains away or fetters its legislative zoning power; impact-mitigation commitments accompanying a rezoning do not invalidate the amendment where the legislative body retains freedom to enact or reject the change and the measures serve public purposes.
- A municipal master plan is generally advisory; inconsistency with it does not, by itself, make a zoning amendment unlawful if statutory purposes and procedural requirements are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the rezoning of a tract along a heavily commercial roadway because it was rationally related to public welfare, consistent with surrounding uses, and not rendered invalid by mitigation commitments or by alleged tension with an advisory master plan.


Rando v. Town of N. Attleborough, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 603 (1998)