Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Ass'n, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gardner

• Decision Date: 08 October 1987
• Docket Number: GARDNER-ATHOL
• Citation: Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Ass'n, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gardner, 513 N.E.2d 1272, 401 Mass. 12 (Mass. 1987)
• Parties: , 42 Ed. Law Rep. 381 AREA MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al. 1 v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF GARDNER et al. 2
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1272

513 N.E.2d 1272

401 Mass. 12, 42 Ed. Law Rep. 381

GARDNER-ATHOL AREA MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.¹ v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF GARDNER et al.²

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Worcester.

Argued May 6, 1987.

Decided Oct. 8, 1987.

Martin Ames, Chelmsford, for Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Ass'n, inc.

Suzanne E. Durrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, for Dept. of Mental Health.

John B. Barrett, City Solicitor, Boston (Anthony E. Penski, Asst. City Solicitor, Boston with him), for defendants.

Kenneth N. Margolin, Boston for Massachusetts Ass'n of Private 766 Schools, Inc., and another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Robert D. Fleischner, Northampton, Matthew Engel, William G. Crane, Robert Weber, David Engle, Boston, Anna Alford, Sudbury, and Deborah Filler, Cambridge, for Massachusetts Ass'n for Mental Health, Inc., and others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

The Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Association, Inc.(GAAMHA), supported by the Department of Mental Health(department), argues that, because GAAMHA is a "nonprofit educational corporation" and because its proposed use of premises in Gardner as a residential care facility would be a use of the premises for "educational purposes," the Gardner zoning ordinance may not lawfully forbid GAAMHA's proposed use of premises for a residential care facility for four adults with mental disabilities.GAAMHA relies on the provision in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, which denies to a municipality the right to restrict by zoning "the use of land or structures ... for educational purposes ... by a nonprofit educational corporation."

A District Court judge, deciding GAAMHA's appeal (G.L. c. 40A, § 17) from a decision of the Gardner board of appeals (board), agreed that GAAMHA's proposed use was for educational purposes but ruled that GAAMHA was not a "nonprofit educational corporation" within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A, § 3.We agree that the proposed use would be for educational purposes, an issue which needs no further discussion.SeeFitchburg Hous. Auth. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg, 380 Mass. 869, 874, 406 N.E.2d 1006(1980);Commissioner of Code Inspection of Worcester v. Worcester Dynamy, Inc., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 97, 99-100, 413 N.E.2d 1151(1980).Cf.Whitinsville Retirement Soc'y v. Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757, 760, 477 N.E.2d 407(1985)(primary purpose of a proposed nursing home not educational).We disagree, however, with the judge's conclusion that GAAMHA is not a nonprofit educational corporation.Because GAAMHA is a nonprofit educational corporation, the Gardner zoning ordinance may not lawfully restrict GAAMHA's proposed use of the premises.³

We summarize relevant facts found by the judge.GAAMHA is a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to G.L. c. 180.Its articles of organization state its purposes as follows: "To cooperate with the State and National Associations for Mental Health and other Mental Health Associations as well as State and other governmental agencies to promote a program of mental health education; to provide means and facilities to aid in the prevention, care and treatment of mental health disorders; to aid in the restoration of mental health and to aid in the rehabilitation of the mentally handicapped, and to do all things necessary and incidental to the carrying out of these purposes."GAAMHA operates programs for the mentally ill and mentally retarded, in addition to providing vocational training and alcohol dependence programs.GAAMHA operates an outpatient clinic and recovery home for alcoholics.

In October, 1985, GAAMHA leased a single family dwelling on Edgell Street in Gardner for use as a residential care facility for four adults with mental disabilities, pursuant to a program funded by the Commonwealth.The residents would be taught daily living, as well as vocational skills, with the goal of preparing them for more independent living.Shortly before the lease was executed, an Edgell Street resident wrote to the building inspector questioning the proposed use of the property.The building inspector answered that the proposed use would be exempt from the application of the Gardner zoning ordinance by virtue of G.L. c. 40A, § 3.Numerous residents of the area appealed the building inspector's decision to the board.The board received advice from the city solicitor that he had advised the building inspector that the city could not prohibit the proposed use.The board nevertheless reversed the building inspector's ruling in a decision that did not state the board's reasons for its decision.⁴

On GAAMHA's appeal the department intervened, and the judge, concluding that education appeared to play a subordinate role in GAAMHA's activities and that GAAMHA was not a nonprofit educational corporation, affirmed the board's decision.GAAMHA and the department appealed, and we allowed their applications for direct appellate review.

GAAMHA is a nonprofit corporation.The issue is whether it is a nonprofit educational corporation.GAAMHA's corporate purposes, set forth above, surely include educational purposes.Cooperation with private associations and governmental agencies "to promote a program of mental health education,""to aid in the restoration of mental health and to aid in the rehabilitation of the mentally handicapped" are clear educational purposes.Rehabilitation surely falls within the meaning of education.SeeHarbor Schools, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Haverhill, 5 Mass.App.Ct. 600, 604-605, 366 N.E.2d 764(1977).

There is nothing in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, as the board argues, that requires that education be the dominant purpose or primary activity of a nonprofit corporation in order that it may qualify as a nonprofit educational corporation under § 3.We have no authority to rewrite the statute to insert such a requirement.⁵Acceptance of the concept that the dominant or principal activity of such a corporation must be educational would require the investigation and assessment of detailed facts not readily available to one administering local zoning regulations and presumably that duty would be a continuing one.⁶The proper test in deciding whether a nonprofit corporation is an educational one is whether its articles of organization permit it to engage in educational activities, a question easily answered by a review of documents filed with the State.

There is no reason to find uncertainty in § 3, thus arguably justifying adding a requirement that the corporation's activities be primarily in education.SeeWorcester County Christian Communications, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Spencer, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 83, 87, 491 N.E.2d 634(1986)("all that is required is that the plaintiff be a nonprofit corporation intending to use its land or structures for religious or educational purposes").The word educational in the phrase "nonprofit educational corporation" is not made superfluous by our construction of the statute.Not every word in a statute need carry a heavy load.It is enough to say that "educational" in the phrase "nonprofit educational corporation" means that the proposed educational activities must be within the corporate purposes of the nonprofit corporation.That this states the obvious--no corporation should act ultra vires--does not deprive the word "educational" of any meaning in § 3 as written.Thus, there is no warrant for injecting the word "primarily" in § 3 for the asserted purpose of giving meaning to the word "educational" which it could not otherwise have.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated.Judgment shall be entered reversing the decision of the board of appeals and affirming the determination of the building inspector.First, however, the issue whether GAMMHA and the department are entitled to costs against the board must be decided.SeeG.L. c. 40A, § 17, fourth par. (no costs are allowed against the board "unless it shall appear to the court that the board ... in making the decision appealed from acted with gross negligence, in bad faith or with malice").The judge deferred this question and, when he decided the case in favor of the board on the merits, he concluded that he did not have to decide whether to award costs against the board.

So ordered.

LYNCH, Justice (dissenting, with whom NOLAN, Justice, joins).

While neither G.L. c. 40A, nor G.L. c. 180, under which GAAMHA is incorporated, defines the term "nonprofit educational corporation,""[i]t is not to be assumed that words in a statute have no force or effect."Gillam v. Board of Health of Saugus, 327 Mass. 621, 623, 100 N.E.2d 687(1951).I agree with the court that, under the predecessor to § 3(the former c. 40A, § 2, as amended through St.1959, c. 607, § 1, superseded bySt.1975, c. 808, § 3), "the use proposed in this case could not have been regulated by local zoning provisions."Infra at 1275 n. 5.The difficulty is that the current § 3 requires not only that there be an "educational purpose," as did the predecessor section, but also that the property be owned or leased by a "nonprofit educational corporation."In construing statutory language, we have stated, "None of the words of a statute is to be regarded as superfluous, but each is to be given its ordinary meaning...