In Rando v. Town of North Attleborough, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 603, 607, 692 N.E.2d 544 (1998), a developer signed various covenants and deed restrictions prior to the North Attleborough Town Meeting in order to persuade the town to down-zone a 37 acre parcel from "residential" to "limited commercial" designation. The developer offered the following performance: (a) creation of a fourteen and one-half acre buffer shielding residential neighbors from the planned commercial development; (b) provision of traffic improvements; (c) establishment of a $ 260,000 mitigation fund for the Town; (d) payment of between $ 400,000 and $ 450,000, to the Massachusetts Highway Department for roadway improvements; and (e) agreement not to seek tax abatement on the land for five years. Rando, 44 Mass. App. Ct. at 605. The court rejected an abutter's attempt to nullify the rezoning based on his claim that the $ 260,000 mitigation fund contribution was neither tied to any specific projected costs of the proposed development nor targeted toward any specific mitigation effort, and therefore was an extraneous consideration meant to influence improperly the town's decision. Id. at 609. In affirming the land court's holding that the rezoning was valid, the Appeals Court stated that "a payment that is promised by the developer rather than required by the municipality and that is reasonably intended to meet public needs arising out of the proposed development" is not an extraneous influence. Id. Noting that the developer's mitigation covenant acknowledged an unspecified "substantial impact on the town" for which the $ 260,000 fund was meant to compensate, the court found that the inducements offered by the developer included no extraneous considerations, and the rezoning thus did not constitute illegal contract zoning. Id. The Appeals Court rejected an abutter's claim that an unrestricted monetary payment made directly to the town by the owner of rezoned land constituted "extraneous consideration" that could "impeach the enacting vote," in the manner criticized in Sylvania Elec. Prod. Inc. v. Newton, 344 Mass. 428, 433, 183 N.E.2d 118 (1962): "We do not think a payment that is promised by the developer rather than required by the municipality and that is reasonably intended to meet public needs arising out of the proposed development can be viewed as an "extraneous influence" upon a zoning decision. See Wegner, Moving Toward the Bargaining Table: Contract Zoning, Development Agreements, and the Theoretical Foundations of Government Land Use Deals, 65 N.C. L. Rev. 957, 991 & n.181 (1987)." (44 Mass. App. Ct. at 609.) To the Rando Court, the ultimate question (which the Court answered in the negative) was whether the two-thirds majority of town meeting members needed for passage of the rezoning were "improperly influenced to act on behalf of the developer rather than in the best interests of the town." Id. at 610-611.