News

On February 20, 2009, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in Kitras v. Zoning Administrator of Aquinnah and Martha’s Vineyard Commission.  In addition to ruling that a proposed subdivision did not have the benefit of the zoning freeze under Chapter 40A, § 6, the SJC affirmed the Superior Court in upholding two Districts of Critical Planning Concern (“DCPC”) enacted by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in the Town of Aquinnah.  These DCPCs established a town-wide rate of development district to limit the number of building permits available each year. 

The SJC ruled that a landowner seeking to appeal the enactment of the DCPC must do so under G.L. Chapter 249, § 4, permitting appeals in the nature of certiorari within 60 days of enactment.  Because Kitras failed to file such an appeal, her action was dismissed as untimely. 

In addition, the Court ruled that the landowner could not challenge a DCPC in the Land Court pursuant to G.L. Chapter 240, § 14A, which authorizes landowners to challenge the validity of a zoning enactments through a action similar to a declaratory judgment.  However, the SJC held that the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Act is regional legislation, “the polar opposite” of local zoning enactments and may not be challenged in the Land Court, i.e., that G.L. Chapter 240, § 14A does not provide an avenue for a landowner to challenge a DCPC. 

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission was represented throughout the litigation, in the Superior Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court by Eric Wodlinger of Rackemann’s litigation department.  Rackemann serves as general counsel to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and to the Cape Cod Commission, the only other regional planning and regulatory commission in Massachusetts