Valentin v. Town of Natick

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-10830-PBS
• Parties: INDA VALENTIN, JOEL VALENTIN, and GRACE GABLE MANOIRS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF NATICK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

INDA VALENTIN, JOEL VALENTIN, and GRACE GABLE MANOIRS, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWN OF NATICK, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-10830-PBS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARIS, D.J.

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from the denial of Linda and Joel Valentin's application for a permit to develop a condominium project, which included affordable housing, in a predominately white neighborhood in Natick, Massachusetts. The Valentins are a black couple of Haitian origin who have lived in Natick for 30 years. They bring this action against the Town of Natick, the Planning Board of the Town (the “Board” or “Planning Board”), five individual members of the Board, the Natick Historical Commission, and Historical

1

Commission Chair Stephen Evers, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.^[1]

Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and assert the defense of qualified immunity. After hearing, the Court ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 66).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

When all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiffs, the Complaint alleges the following facts:

I. The New Bylaw

In November 2005, the Valentins bought historic property at 50 Pleasant Street in South Natick, a predominantly white neighborhood. The property consists of 63,246 square feet of land, located in a single-family residential zoning district, and contains a single-family dwelling that is one of the oldest buildings in Natick. It qualifies as a “historic structure.”

2

In early 2019, the Valentins worked closely with the Natick Planning Board to develop Natick's Historic Preservation Bylaw (“New Bylaw”), which sought to preserve certain historic properties, labeled “smaller estates,” by permitting redevelopment in the form of condominiums or other multi-family units. The planning Board Chair, Theresa Evans, supported the New Bylaw, and gave as an example of the need for the New Bylaw the Valentins' plan to restore a historic barn which could not be accomplished under the old bylaw. The Town Meeting passed the Bylaw by a vote of 96 in favor, 4 against, 3 abstentions.

On August 28, 2019, the Valentins applied for a special permit and site plan approval under the New Bylaw. They proposed to renovate the existing house at 50 Pleasant Street with additions, reconstruct a historical barn and carriage house, and add underground parking. This proposal, which would allow for eleven condominium units, including affordable housing units, complied with all dimensional requirements of the New Bylaw.

II. Neighborhood Opposition to the Project

Initially, the Planning Board received the project favorably. In a September 9, 2019 letter, the Historical Commission wrote to the Planning Board that they “believe[] the proposed project will have great benefit to our local historic character and architecture

3

by the preservation of the house and development of the reproduced buildings on the site.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 54.

Several South Natick neighbors began a campaign against the Valentins' project, and created an opposition website, www.stop50pleasant.org. On the website, neighbors directed allegedly “racist” comments at the Valentins. One neighbor questioned whether the Valentins were intelligent enough to carry out the project, asserting they were being coached by others. Another questioned whether the Valentins were “monkeying around” or manipulating the Bylaw. Dkt. 1 ¶ 59. The project was described as an “attack on South Natick.” Id.

In response to this neighborhood opposition, the Board informed the Valentins that it would not approve the project without a substantial revision of the plans. In the fall of 2019, the Valentins submitted a revised plan eliminating the carriage house and the eleventh condominium unit from the proposal. Addressing the revised proposal at a public meeting attended by neighbors opposing the project, the Board expressed confusion over how to interpret the New Bylaw. The Board sought a legal opinion from Town Counsel as to whether the revised proposal was authorized under the New Bylaw. In December 2019, Town Counsel issued an opinion that the proposal comported with the New Bylaw. But the Board nonetheless interpreted the Bylaw to curtail the proposed

4

project. In January 2020, the Board suggested that the Valentins withdraw their application without prejudice. Believing they had no other option, the Valentins agreed.

III. Repeal

On February 24, 2020, the Valentins renewed their application under the New Bylaw. By this time, the neighbors had begun a campaign to repeal the New Bylaw. The Board delayed a final decision on the application until the repeal could be decided at the Town Meeting in the fall of 2020. It scheduled seventeen public hearings on the application between April 1, 2020 and December 16, 2020. Altogether the Board held 29 hearings and 14 work-group sessions about the project.

On April 22, 2020, the Board declared two new interpretations of the New Bylaw. They interpreted “historic building” in the bylaw to refer only to buildings still standing, even though the bylaw explicitly provides for “replication of documented previous structures.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 76. They also interpreted the New Bylaw to have only one size limitation for all new construction, rather than separate limits for wholly new construction and new construction replicating previously documented structures. These interpretations reduced allowable new construction by one-third. And in May 2020, contrary to the prior legal opinion of Town

5

Counsel, the Board reduced the gross volume of the proposed barn replication at 50 Pleasant Street.

In the July 2020 meeting, one Board member expressed “concern[] about what the neighbors have said,” asking “people to reflect very carefully” before commenting that the project was “detrimental to the character of the neighborhood.” Id. ¶ 84.

In October 2020, the Valentins again submitted revised plans, lowering the number of units from eleven to seven and replacing the underground parking with individual garages, reducing the scale of the project by a third, well under the floor area ratio allowed under the New Bylaw.

At this point the Chair of the Natick Historic Commission, Stephen Evers, who had been corresponding with certain South Natick neighbors, forwarded to Board members their concerns that the project was too big. Evers also joined the campaign to repeal the New...