In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a Land Court ruling that would have allowed a massive warehouse project as of right in Holliston’s industrial district.
CRG Acquisition, LLC sought to build an approximately 800,000-square-foot warehouse and distribution facility on 72 acres. The town’s planning board had denied both a special permit and modified site plan approval, citing traffic, noise, and impacts on the town’s character. CRG argued that under the zoning bylaw’s § III.G.1, a “[w]holesale office or showroom, including warehouse facilities” is permitted as of right—no special permit needed.
The Land Court agreed, finding the bylaw’s definition of “warehouse” and its placement in the use table meant a standalone warehouse qualified. The Appeals Court disagreed.
Writing for the panel, Justice Toone held that neither the planning board nor the town was entitled to deference on this pure question of bylaw interpretation under G. L. c. 240, § 14A. More importantly, the court ruled that the phrase “including warehouse facilities” modifies the wholesale office or showroom. It permits accessory warehousing, not a freestanding industrial warehouse. Such a large facility falls under “general industrial uses” that occupy more than 15,000 square feet and therefore requires a special permit under § III.G.3.
The judgment for CRG was reversed. The court directed entry of judgment for the town declaring that the proposed warehouse requires a special permit.
The decision underscores careful reading of zoning tables and the distinction between principal and accessory uses. For developers and municipalities alike, it reinforces that size and primary function matter when determining whether a project proceeds as of right or needs discretionary approval.