Hadley law on building goes to SJC
Measures to temper development at issue
HADLEY -- Every now and then, there comes a time when people far from this fertile plain, shaped by the whims of the curving Connecticut River might no longer ignore the famous Hadley soil.
Two hundred years ago, the rich earth that nourished an unusual kind of grain transformed this rural town into the broom-making capital of the nation. Last century, Hadley was once heralded as the asparagus capital of the world.
But in more recent years, the town has also nourished Pizza Hut,
As residential subdivisions also began to blossom -- building permits increased fivefold during the 1980s -- the town took a controversial step to limit growth. In 1988, residents approved a bylaw that would require all new subdivisions to be built gradually over 10 years.
This week, the eyes of the state will once again be on Hadley, as the Supreme Judicial Court considers whether the bylaw is constitutional. As towns grapple with the pressures of growth, many are watching to see whether they, too, might follow Hadley's lead.
Although many towns -- including Bolton, Rowley, and Leicester -- have already adopted bylaws capping the number of building permits they will issue each year, most differ from Hadley's in one important way: They are temporary.
The lawsuit against the town of Hadley was brought by Martha W. Zuckerman, who owns a thoroughbred horse farm in a rural section of the town, which still has more agricultural land than any other community in the state. Zuckerman wants to develop her 66 acres, now surrounded by the rough stubble of last year's corn, into a subdivision with as many as 40 houses.
But the delays required by the bylaw, spreading building over a decade, make the project economically infeasible, she argues. In 2002, Land Court Judge Alexander H. Sands III agreed with Zuckerman that the bylaw was unconstitutional, partly because the town didn't convince him that there was a reason to enact the law. For instance, Hadley didn't use the time after the bylaw went into effect to improve its planning and zoning process, Sands ruled. Officials in Hadley, which lies north of Springfield and about 100 miles west of Boston, appealed to the SJC.
Zuckerman and her husband argue that if the court allows the bylaw to stand, they should be reimbursed for the lost value of the land. "I think this bylaw, like a lot of other laws in the Commonwealth, is a constructive taking of people's property rights," said Brian Zuckerman.
Hadley, with about 4,700 residents, is a town with two faces. The busy stretch along Route 9, from Interstate 91 to the Amherst border, is packed with retail and restaurant chains. But another section of town, resting beneath the ragged Holyoke Range, is a world away, sparsely populated and rural.
Moody Bridge Road cuts through this part of town. Near the Zuckermans' farm, Bri-Mar Stable, the road turns to dirt, pockmarked with puddles from a mid-winter thaw.
In the early 1980s, Hadley issued an average of 10 building permits a year. By 1987, that number had increased to 50. Also that year, a developer proposed one of the largest subdivisions: 255 homes.
The following May, residents at Town Meeting voted to limit the number of residential building permits issued to 24 per year for the following two years. And in October 1988, voters went one step further. They passed a permanent bylaw limiting developers to building one-tenth of the units in each subdivision every year.
"If we didn't do something, we just saw that residential subdivision would overrun the town and change the farming perspective of the town," said James Maksimoski, chairman of the town's Planning Board.
Joel B. Bard, who will represent Hadley before the SJC this week, argues that spreading out the building of new developments gives the town a chance to expand town services -- schools and the police department, for instance.
"Hadley is saying, and many towns feel the same way, that growth is a constant challenge," Bard said. "In looking at the tools available, it strikes them that they should be able to meter growth, to have growth occur in a predictable fashion."
But the Zuckermans and other opponents argue that the bylaw is extreme. It harms developers, who still have to pay for the initial costs of a residential subdivision, such as roads and water and sewer systems, upfront, while the houses -- and their profits -- are spread over a decade, said Diane C. Tillotson, the Zuckermans' lawyer.
"What they're really trying to do is control expenditures for things like schools, water, and all the things that municipalities traditionally provide," said Tillotson. "By doing it through land-use and zoning measures . . . it's almost like an additional tax on those landowners."
At first, the Zuckermans tried to preserve the farm by selling the development rights -- in exchange for not developing the property -- under a state program designed to preserve agricultural land. But they were told that the town bylaw made the development rights worth little, Brian Zuckerman said.
Instead, they decided to seek more money by subdividing the property and selling it.
"Farming is 365 days a year," he said. "We're just at an age where it's going to be a little bit too much."
Maksimoski says the bylaw has worked as town officials hoped, but also brought some unintended consequences. Since the bylaw was enacted, the town has issued about 20 building permits a year.
"It's been a two-edged sword," he said. "It has put a control on residential growth. The flip side is it has also inflated the price of building lots."
Last year, the median sales price for a single-family home was $230,000, up from $177,000 in 2002, according to the Warren Group.
A report issued in 1998 by the Hadley Open Space and Recreation Plan Committee concluded that the bylaw doesn't help preserve farmland because the new homes are "scattered throughout town."
The report recommended that the town pass a bylaw that would encourage development in clusters, preserving more open space.
But John A. Pike, a lawyer who wrote an amicus brief supporting the bylaw on behalf of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, argues that local bylaws limiting building permits allow communities a rare chance to control growth within their borders.
"Development in Massachusetts has been excessively inclined toward sprawl," Pike said. "It's also jeopardizing clean water and proper sewer arrangements for towns, particularly in Eastern Massachusetts, with the result that towns are significantly hamstrung in what they can do to control their own future."
Kathleen Burge can be reached at kburge@globe.com
