Daily Development for Tuesday, December 4, 2001
By: Patrick A.
Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
prandolph@cctr.umkc.edu
North Shore Realty Trust v. Commonwealth, 747 N.E.2d 107 (Mass. 2001).
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts took by eminent domain a piece of property in Cambridge, Massachusetts that was bordered on one side by a natural boundary (the Charles River). North Shore Realty Trust owned the property. The Commonwealth refused to pay the owner an amount based upon the development potential of the parcel, as is the customary practice in eminent domain cases, on the basis of a Cambridge city zoning statute which, according to the Commonwealth, did not classify the taken parcel as a "lot." If the parcel did not qualify as a lot, the Commonwealth argued, zoning regulations precluded development of the parcel. The trial court found that the property was a "lot," but asked the jury to find for values with an without the definition applying. The jury found that as a "lot" the property was worth $7.25 million, while if not a "lot" the property was worth $4.78 million, since the only use would be the preexisting use for warehouses. Certainly an issue worth fighting over (if one assumes that the Commonwealth's position made any sense at all.)
The Cambridge zoning ordinance defines a lot as "[a] parcel of land in identical ownership throughout, bounded by other lots or by streets, which is designated by its owner to be used, developed or built upon as a unit." The Commonwealth argued that because the parcel in question was not bounded by other streets or lots (as defined by the statute) the parcel was not a lot and therefore could not qualify for any uses or forms of development.
The court determined that the zoning ordinance was ambiguous and the use of "lot" resulted in a "circular self-reference." If all areas bordered by rivers are not "lots," then any lots bordering them also cannot be "lots," since they would be bounded neither by a street or another lot.
This would effectively disqualify virtually all the land in the zoning area from "lot"hood.
The court determined that a parcel that is bordered by a river should be a "lot" for the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and ordered the Commonwealth to pay the owner of the land for the appropriate value of the land, i.e. a value based upon the development potential of the parcel.
The court further noted that the essence of the zoning ordinance was to regulate according to size of parcel, not on the basis of whether or not it constituted a "lot." Rather, the definition of "lot" was used to determine whether separate parcels could be grouped together to establish one developable unit. The reference to roadways or other lots as boundaries was to require that parcels be contiguous in order to be "lumped."
In sum, the court concluded that, despite the relatively clear language, it was necessary to construe "lot" within the meaning of the ordinance as including parcels bounded not by streets or other lots, but by "natural boundaries, such as rivers."
Comment 1: It is interesting to note that no one apparently bothered to ask the city of Cambridge, which adopted the ordinance, how it interpreted the provision. It had been on the books for forty years, and the Commonwealth argued on appeal that most likely all approved uses had been accepted as variances.
Comment 2: The court's definition is not wholly successful, since it doesn't tell us what is meant by "bounded." What about parcels that are bisected by a smaller waterway? Are they necessarily not included within the definition as a single "lot?" But we shouldn't require that kind of specificity from the court. It's up to the City of Cambridge to get this right.
Readers are urged to respond, comment, and
argue with the daily development or the editor's comments about it.
Items in the Daily Development section
generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real
Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust
Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members
only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years, these Reports have been
collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in
Real Estate Law, volumes 1‑6, published by the ABA Press. The Annual
Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the Report or the
Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the ABA. (312) 988 5590 or mtabor@staff.abanet.org
Items reported here and in the ABA
publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied
upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal
matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the
DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility
of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting
to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and
should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an Internet discussion group for
serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 ‑
10 messages per workday.
Daily Developments are posted every workday.
To subscribe to Dirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Dirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Dirt, send an
e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Dirt |
For information on other commands, send the
message Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive
coverage that includes not only commercial and general real estate matters but
also focuses specifically upon residential real estate matters. Because real
estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named
"Brokerdirt." But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers,
lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe
to this alternative list. If you subscribe to Brokerdirt, it is not necessary
also to subscribe to DIRT, as Brokerdirt carries all DIRT traffic in addition
to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail
to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Brokerdirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Brokerdirt,
send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Brokerdirt |
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the University of
Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor
Randolph grants permission for copying or distribution of Daily Developments
for educational purposes, including professional continuing education, provided
that no charge is imposed for such distribution and that appropriate credit is
given to Professor Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at: http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/