Municipal – Real estate development – Certiorari

Listen to this article

Where plaintiffs have requested certiorari review of a decision by the Boston Planning and Development Agency to allow construction of a multi-unit residential building in Dorchester, the plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because they were not brought within the 30-day statutory period allowed for seeking judicial review.

“In these three consolidated matters, plaintiffs seek certiorari review of a decision by the Boston Planning and Development Agency (‘BPDA’) to allow construction of a multi-unit residential building in Dorchester pursuant to G.L.c. 121A and St. 1960, c. 652 (‘Decision’). The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs allege the Decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Defendants argue that plaintiffs missed the deadline to seek judicial review and lack standing, and that the Decision is supported by substantial evidence. Because plaintiffs did not bring their claims within the statutory period authorized for seeking judicial review, I must deny their motion and allow defendants’ cross-motion. …

“Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because they were not brought within the 30-day statutory period allowed for seeking judicial review. …

“The 30-day statutory appeal period is not merely a persnickety elevation of form over substance; it is a critically important component of statutory design. …

“Plaintiffs argue that strict enforcement of the 30-day deadline deprives them of due process. Such challenges have been routinely rejected in the reported cases. …

“Nor does laches or estoppel apply in this situation. Laches does not apply to the government when it is enforcing a public right or protecting a public interest. …”

Epiphany v. Jemison, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-053-25) (7 pages) (Krupp, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Nos. 24-103-BLS1, 24-104-BLS1 and 24-109-BLS1) (April 24, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.