Opinion
April 17, 1974.
Burton L. Schafer ( Philip L. Cohen with him) for Martin Cerel, trustee.
Robert Tuchmann for Robert W. Eisenmenger others, interveners.
Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr. ( Reginald H. Howe with him) for the town of Natick.
This petition was brought under G.L.c. 185, § 1 ( j 1/2), and G.L.c. 240, § 14A, to determine the applicability of a provision of the zoning by-law of the town of Natick to land of the petitioner. The petitioner has appealed from a decision of the Land Court made upon a statement of agreed facts. Under Article 1 of the warrant for a special town meeting held on June 17, 1969, the town voted to amend the zoning by-law by establishing a new type of use district, viz., "Planned Cluster Development" (PCD). The town also voted under Article 2 of that warrant to amend its zoning map to rezone other land known as the "Bianchi Property" as a PCD district. A subsequent town meeting refused to adopt an article to rezone the petitioner's land as a PCD district. In his central argument the petitioner relies on the following sentence in the PCD amendment: "It is specified that only land areas containing 4,500,000 square feet or more shall be included in the P.C.D. district." He contends that this sentence automatically created a "floating zone" with the result that any parcel of land meeting this area requirement would, without further action by the town meeting, be rezoned as a PCD district. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, it is clear that the quoted provision of the PCD amendment merely states the minimum size which such a district must have, just as other portions of the amendment describe design, construction and operational criteria deemed desirable in such a district. The amendment adopted under Article 1 changed no boundaries of any existing district. It neither generated automatic rezoning of the petitioner's land nor designated any other land within the town as a PCD district. By its vote under Article 1 the town simply intended to create a new type of district to which land could subsequently be assigned by amendment of the zoning map (Zoning By-Laws, § II, subsection IIB, 1) pursuant to a separate vote of the town meeting. G.L.c. 40A, § 6, as amended. The decision is affirmed and costs of the appeal are to be awarded to the respondents.
So ordered.