Regis College v. Town of Weston, 968 N.E.2d 347

Dover Amendment (G. L. c. 40A, § 3, second par.) exempts non-profit educational land uses from certain zoning; education is broadly construed.
Plaintiff, a private non-profit educational corporation affiliated with the Sisters of St. Joseph, seeks Dover protection for Regis East, a proposed 60-acre development across Weston from its current campus.
Regis East would include eight buildings (about 766,600 sq ft total), with roughly 470,000 sq ft residential and remainder nonresidential (dining, healthcare, classrooms, Children’s Center, Adult Day Care).
Residents would be elderly (avg. 75), pay substantial entrance and monthly fees, and be enrolled in academic activities with advisors and wellness plans.
Affidavits describe a planned integrated operation with the West Campus, including shared facilities and potential clinical placements for nursing programs; details of operation remain uncertain.
Land Court summary judgment denied Dover protection, finding educational goals subordinate to housing/revenue; plaintiff appealed for direct appellate review; the trial court remanded for a Dover determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Regis East qualifies for Dover protection as an educational use.	Regis East primarily serves educational purposes.	Regis East’s primary use is residential/revenue, not educational.	No; record insufficient to show primary educational purpose at summary judgment.
Whether Dover protection requires primary/dominant educational purpose.	Dominant educational purpose is not explicitly required by text.	Primacy of educational purpose is essential to Dover protection.	Dominant purpose required; court must assess if educational goals predominate.
Whether the record creates a genuine dispute of material fact about the project’s operation.	Affidavits show structured educational program and integration with existing campus.	Affidavits are vague; not enough to show dominance of education.	Record creates potential disputes of material fact; summary judgment improper.
Whether appellate review is appropriate given the need for credibility determinations.	Trial testimony needed to assess enforcement of course requirements.	Trial-level credibility determinations are necessary.	Remand to Land Court for fact-specific evaluation, including credibility.

Whitinsville Retirement Soc’y, Inc. v. Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757 (Mass. 1985) (educational purposes must be primary/dominant to qualify)
Fitchburg Housing Authority v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg, 380 Mass. 869 (Mass. 1980) (educational use may extend to nontraditional settings; but primary purpose required)
Kurz v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, 341 Mass. 110 (Mass. 1960) (education is broad, not limited to traditional schools)
Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Ass’n v. ZBA of Gardner, 401 Mass. 12 (Mass. 1987) (primary/dominant educational purpose required; avoid mere adaptation)
Mount Hermon Boys’ School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139 (Mass. 1887) (education as a broad concept; statutory terms interpreted in common usage)
Assessors of Boston v. Garland School of Home Making, 296 Mass. 378 (Mass. 1937) (historical view of education as a broad use)
Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753 (Mass. 1993) (Dover Amendment balance between preventing discrimination and local zoning)
Lasell Village v. Assessors of Newton, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 414 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (in evaluating educational dominance, actual operation matters)