The Appeals Court has ruled that Needham residents cannot intervene in a lawsuit between the town’s planning board and a building developer named Needham Enterprises LLC.
The developer wants to build a 10,034 square foot childcare facility in the town. In March 2022, the planning board allowed the developer’s plans while imposing certain conditions.
The developer filed a lawsuit in Land Court arguing that the planning board could not impose conditions on a childcare facility. The developer’s argument is based on the Dover Amendment, M.G.L. c. 40A, Sec. 30.
Residents who abut the proposed building site filed a motion to intervene in the case.
Under Massachusetts case law, anyone wishing to intervene in a lawsuit must satisfy the following requirements:
- the application must be timely;
- the applicant must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the litigation in which the
applicant wishes to intervene; - the applicant must show that, unless able to intervene, the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect the interest he has; and
- the applicant must demonstrate that his interest in the litigation is not adequately represented by existing parties.
See Bolden v. O’Connor Care of Worcester, Inc., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 56, 61, (2000).
The residents failed to satisfy the 4th requirement, according to Land Court. Consequently, their motion to intervene was denied.
Undeterred, the residents appealed the decision. They argued, in part, that the town’s lawyers “solely represented municipal interests.”
The Appeals Court was not persuaded and the justices upheld the Land Court’s decision denying intervention.
According to the Appeals Court,
While the abutters emphasize the board’s admission that their interests were not the same, this reading ignores that they and the board share the same ultimate goal, preserving the board’s decision, and there is thus “no actual disagreement” as relates to goals…Despite its decision to not defend all the conditions of its special permit in the Land Court, the board gave no indication that it would not vigorously defend its decision. Unanimity of interest is not the same as unanimity of arguments. Accordingly, the abutters have not met their burden for showing inadequacy in the board’s representation and the abutters do not meet the requirements for intervention as of right. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The full text of the opinion is attached below: