A Land Court decision upheld a permit that was issued for a 27-unit rental development proposed under the state’s anti-snob zoning law in Amherst. This is an architect’s early rendering of the project, which is known as Butternut Farms.

Town and city officials know they can reject developments proposed under the state’s anti-snob zoning law if enough of their community’s housing is certified as affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

By reaching the state-set threshold of 10 percent, many community leaders feel they can wave goodbye to developers who seek variances to local zoning rules to build housing under the statute known as Chapter 40B.

But a recent Land Court decision has sent a strong message: Just because a town has met the 10 percent goal doesn’t mean that the community won’t see another Chapter 40B project.

In the decision, Land Court Justice Alexander Sands III wrote that cities and towns may “override restrictive zoning ordinances in order to facilitate the construction of low- and moderate-income housing” even after achieving the 10 percent threshold.

The case arose after a group of Amherst residents sued the local zoning board and HAP Inc., a regional housing partnership in Springfield that wants to build 27 affordable rental units using a comprehensive permit available under Chapter 40B. Two years ago when the development was proposed, monthly rents were projected to be $556 for two-bedroom units and $630 for three-bedroom units.

But abutters argued that the zoning board shouldn’t have granted variances and a permit to allow HAP Inc. to build the housing development, known as Butternut Farms, on a 4.2-acre site because Amherst already has enough affordable housing. Some 951 housing units in Amherst are considered affordable, representing 10.54 percent of the town’s total housing units, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development’s Web site.

Under Chapter 40B, developers who are building housing with some affordable component can go through a speedier permitting process and get variances to local zoning in communities where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is deemed affordable.

‘First Step’

The controversial law has come under attack in recent years by municipal officials who feel that developers are misusing the law to build inappropriately sized developments that burden local resources. Chapter 40B has been revised throughout the years, including regulatory changes that were made by DHCD last year. Supporters maintain that those changes adequately addressed many of the concerns expressed by local officials, but some lawmakers weren’t satisfied and filed a flurry of other bills.

That prompted the governor to appoint a task force earlier this year to make recommendations regarding the statute. A report from the task force and dozens of bills regarding Chapter 40B are still being considered by the state’s joint housing committee.

In this case, the court upheld the permit issued for Butternut Farms. The decision wasn’t a huge surprise for some legal specialists, who say Chapter 40B gives town officials the right to refuse projects but doesn’t mandate that they reject projects once the 10 percent goal has been reached.

“It’s [the decision] no real big news to me or to most people because … the way the statute is written, and all the cases have been interpreted to say, that even though you’ve got the 10 percent they [zoning boards] can still override zoning if they believe [the project is] consistent with local needs,” said Jim Ward, an attorney at Nutter McClennen & Fish in Boston.

For affordable housing proponents, the decision was a critical victory.

“I think if this aspect of 40B had been overturned that a lot of the communities … that have historically been doing the right thing would have lost a very important tool to continue doing affordable housing in their respective communities,” said Peter Gagilaridi, executive of HAP Inc.

According to Gagliardi, this is the first time “this particular aspect of Chapter 40B” had been challenged in court.

However, since the abutters’ attorney indicated in a local newspaper story that he is likely to appeal, Gagliardi believes this is just the latest round in HAP’s battle to get Butternut Farms built.

And, according to Gagliardi, there are other unresolved issues that the abutters have raised, including a conflict-of-interest charge involving a member of the town planning staff who knows Gagliardi.

“I think that while this is probably only one step before we have ultimate confirmation of the decision, I think it’s a very important first step and it strongly upholds what we believe are the authorities given to a ZBA [zoning board of appeals] under Chapter 40B,” said Gagliardi.