Source: http://masscases.com/cases/land/1982/1982-105589-DECISION.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:49:14+00:00

Document:
SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, INC. vs. TOWN OF BROOKLINE.
1. The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana with its principal office in the State of Indiana. The Sisters are duly registered as a foreign corporation in the Commonwealth puruant to the provisions of G. L. c. 181 §4.
2. The Sisters are the record owners in possession of a parcel of land (the "locus") situated on Holland Road and Fisher Avenue in the Town, conveyed to them by the Trustees of Boston University by deed dated June 26, 1979 and recorded with Norfolk Deeds, Book 5619, Page 556. The locus is comprised of parcels 3, 6 and 7 in said deed.
3. The locus previously was the site of a campus of an educational institution known as the Cardinal Cushing College, and located thereon were such facilities as dormitories, classroom facilities, cooking and dining facilites, administrative offices and accessory improvements on grounds covering about 4 1/2 acres.
To confer such degrees as are usual in such institutions..."
5. The Sisters have entered into a purchase and sale agreement with another non-profit educational corporation covering the locus.
and provided further (b) that no application for a special permit shall be considered unless it conforms to a current master development plan for the entire school, including plans for major building changes and plans for off-street parking, outdoor recreation and athletics, which plan has been reviewed by the Planning Board for conformance with the goals and policies of the Brookline Comprehensive Plan and so reported to the Board of Appeals in accordance with Section 9.4. Said master development plan shall outline all proposed, planned and expected changes in (1) the real estate holdings of the institution; (2) the buildings and facilities of the institution; (3) the demands for public services to the institution; (4) the demands for public utilities to the institution; (5) the population of the institution by classification; and (6) the housing demands both on and off campus of the institution; all for the ten years following the submission of the plan."
7. Said Section 3 of Chapter 40A provides: "no zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for . . . educational purposes on land owned or leased by . . . a non-profit educational corporation. . ."
8. Prior to the 1978 amendment of the Zoning By-law religious, sectarian and non-sectarian, denominational, private or public schools not conducted as a private gainful business were permitted as of right in any zoning district. At that time a proposal was made that the By-law be amended to provide for greater control over institutional uses consistent with G. L. c. 40A. The Planning Board, as it is required to do, considered the proposed amendment to existing Use 10 and with the Planning Department, a Planning Consultant and the advice of town counsel revised the amendment to conform to what was understood to be statutory and case law limitations.	Under date of April 6, 1978 the Planning Board issued its report which stated that "the proposal would make schools a 'Special Permit' use in all districts, subject to review and public hearing by the Board of Appeals. Also, additional language would be inserted to acknowledge the limitations of the town's power to regulate. Further, a requirement for the submission of a master development plan by the school would be required."
9. The proposed amendments to the zoning by-law initially contained a requirement that the master development plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, but the artcle as adopted at the town meeting of May, 1978 eliminated the requirement of Planning Board approval and made provision only for a review by the Planning Board. The meeting, with 7 opposed, 5 abstaining and 180 in favor, voted to amend the By-law by inserting the provisions which now appear therein as to Use 10. Town counsel also suggested a further definition of the master development plan from the requirements originally proposed and these appear in the amendment as it appeared in the complaint.
10. An application for a special permit under section 9.4 of the Zoning By-law requires the submission of plans which meet the provisions of the State Building Code sections 113.0, 114.0 and 115.0 and conform to the Board of Appeals rule No. 5. The requirement for such plans are the same as those required for the issuance of a building permit.
The sole issues presented for decision are whether the Town can consistently within the provisions of G. L. c. 40A §3 impose on a non-profit educational corporation a requirement that it file with the Board of Appeals a ten year master development plan and file for, and obtain from the Board of Appeals a special permit to use its land for educational purposes.
Prior to St. 1975, c. 808, the General Court had provided in old c. 40A §2 a seemingly unlimited proscription of any ordinance or bylaw which prohibited or limited the use of land for any educational purpose which is religious, sectarian, denominational or public. This was the result of a 1950 amendment designed as an answer to a provision in the zoning by-law of the Town of Dover which prohibited use of land in a residential district for sectarian educational purposes. Attorney General v. Dover, 327 Mass. 601 (1951). The Dover case was followed by two significant decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, the first being Sisters of the Holy Cross of Mass., Inc. v. Brookline, 347 Mass. 486 (1964) where it was held that the town could not validly apply dimensional requirements for a residence in a single family residential district to buildings that serve educational or religious purposes and Radcliffe College v. Cambridge, supra, where the Court permitted the imposition of certain dimensional requirements which did not impede the reasonable uses of the educational institution's land for its purposes.
The comprehensive revision of the Zoning Enabling Act rewrote the provisions relative to educational institutions to authorize the imposition of certain reasonable dimensional requirements. Accordingly, in §3, the present act sets forth the following limitation on the freedom from regulations otherwise granted: "provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements."
"There is nothing in the language of G. L. c. 40A §3, which contemplates the requirement of site plans and informational statements as monitoring devices for educationa1 uses. . ." (p. 1376).
"(3) Where the nature of the operation departs from usual educational practice in terms of noise, hazard or other nuisance to such an extent as to be clearly incompatible with allowable uses in the area;"
Granted that neither an educational institution nor any other entity has a right to create a nuisance, it is not for the Board of Appeals under the guise of regulating noise, hazard or nuisance to bar an educational practice before any nuisance occurs. While the dimensional requirements to which reference is made in subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 may be imposed to the extent that they are reasonable, they may not be the subject of a special permit. There is no reason why they should not remain where they customarily are found, i.e., in the process of applying for a building permit.
As the Supreme Judicial Court has repeatedly stated (see, for example, Crall v. Leominster, 362 Mass. 95 (1972) and Sturges v. Chilmark, supra, at page 825) the role of the courts in reviewing by-laws is limited, every presumption is made in their favor, and if their reasonableness is fairly debatable, they are sustained. The By-law in the present case does not pass this test. I, therefore, find and rule that the provisions of Section 4.30 Use 10 which require a non-profit educational corporation to obtain a special permit for educational purposes and to file a master development plan are invalid as a matter of law and may not be enforced. The locus may be devoted to use for educational purposes by a non-profit educational institution within the meaning of G. L. c. 40A §3, as amended, without the necessity of first filing a master development plan or obtaining a special permit pursuant to the requirements of Section 4.30, Use 10 of the Town's Zoning By-law.
[Note 1] Mass. Adv. Sh. (1980) 815, 817-18.
[Note 2] We note that the Supreme Judicial Court has not as yet had occasion to consider this particular wording of Section 3, although in decisions which predate the 1975 amendment, there can be found cases upholding (but without specifically deciding the validity of) a requirement as to a special permit. See, for example, Shuman v. Board of Aldermen of Newton, 361 Mass. 758 (1972) and Cumberland Farms of Connecticut v. Zoning Board of Appeals of North Attleborough, 359 Mass. 68 (1971).
[Note 3] Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh. (1980) 2261, 2262.
[Note 4] Mass. App. Ct. Adv. Sh. (1979) 1362.

References: §4
 §3
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §3
 §3
 v. 
 v. 
 §3
 v. 
 v.