CC&F Wells-First Managing Member, LLC v. RCG LLP 135 Wells, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-050-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CA No. 17-0620-BLS1 CC&F WELLS-FIRST MANAGING MEMBER, LLC vs. RCG LLP 135 WELLS, LLC MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The plaintiff, CC&F Wells-First Managing Member, LLC (CC&F), and the defendant, RCG LLP 135 Wells, LLC (RCG), are members of Wells-First JV LLC (the Joint Venture or JV), a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized pursuant to an operating agreement (the Agreement). Through a subsidiary, the 135 Wells Avenue LLC (135 Wells), the Joint Venture owns a property commonly known as 135 Wells Avenue in Newton, Massachusetts (the Property). The Property consists of approximately 6.5 acres of land in the Wells Avenue Office Park. The JV was formed to develop the Property into 334 residential units, 25% of which were to be affordable housing within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 40B. According to the terms of the Agreement, if the permits necessary for the development were not obtained (with any rights of appeal exhausted or expired) by May 30, 2016, RCG had the unilateral right to cause the sale of the properties to a third-party in an arms-length transaction. The case is now before the court on CC&F’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the marketing and sale of the Property. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FACTS The following facts are set out in summary fashion sufficient to explain the court’s reasoning. They are drawn from the verified amended complaint, affidavits, and documents submitted by the parties. The Property is subject to a restrictive use covenant adopted by the City of Newton in 1969 and applicable to all parcels in the Office Park. To proceed with the development of the Property, the JV[1] applied to the Newton Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a permit. The ZBA determined that the JV must obtain an amendment to the covenant from the Newton Board of Alderman (the Board) before it had authority to issue a permit. The JV made the request of the Board, but it was rejected. The ZBA concluded that, in consequence, it could not approve the development. The JV appealed the ZBA’s decision to the Housing Appeals Committee of the Department of Housing and Community Development (the HAC), which also found that, in the absence of an amendment to the restrictive covenant, it could not approve the Development. In January, 2016, the JV sought review of HAC’s decision under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the Land Court. On August 16, 2016, the Land Court affirmed HAC. A Notice of Appeal of the Land Court’s decision was timely filed. In November, 2015, […]