2002-TOWN MEETING RECORDS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kelli•Lawrence, Esquire October 29, 2002 DAvis MALM �y Page 2 DAGOS TINE PC. The Amendment Violates Massachusetts Fire Code Regulations and Is Therefore Ultra Vires Section 174-25.1(3) of the Amendment states, "No more than one driveway access may be permitted onto any parcel from an adjacent town or state roadway". See Article 22 § 174-25.1(3). This provision clashes with the Massachusetts Fire Code Regulations, which set forth the rules with which all structures and access ways must comply. See 527 CMR §§ 1.00 et seq. More specifically, Section 174-25.1(3) conflicts with the Fire Code requirement that all buildings and the premises on which they are located have suitable space for fire rescue and extinguishment purposes and "that sufficient unimpeded entrances and exits exist for the entrance of firefighting personnel and the evacuation of the building". See 527 CMR § 25.05. (Emphasis added.) The rule governing such a conflict is "When any provision of[the Fire Code] is found to be in conflict with any building, zoning, safety health or other applicable law, ordinance or code of [another] jurisdiction, the provision which establishes the higher standard for the promotion and protection of the safety and welfare of the public shall prevail". 527 CMR § 1.02(2). As such, the conflict between this Section and the Fire Code should be resolved in favor of the Fire Code, which ostensibly provides a higher standard for the protection of the public. Even if this Section did not conflict with the Fire Code, common sense mandates that premises intended for commercial use have sufficient access for firefighting equipment and personnel. In fact, common industry practice is to provide multiple entranceways to commercial buildings so all vehicles have unimpeded access, unhindered by traffic or turning-radius issues sometimes associated with a single entranceway. The Fire Chief of the Town of Mashpee, who has the duty and authority to enforce the Fire Code, spoke in opposition of Section 174-25.1(3) to this effect at the Town Meeting and recommended that that the single-driveway requirement be changed to permit multiple entranceways. Limiting the Size of Anv Structure to 20,000 Square Feet Is Unrelated to Lot Size and Facially Invalid Section 174-25.1(2) limits all buildings in C-3 Districts to "20,000 square feet in first floor area". See Article 22 § 174-25.1(2). This Section of the Amendment is facially invalid because the size limitation bears no rational relationship to the size of the lot on which it is being built, and is therefore unreasonable. Fafard v. Conservation Com'n of Reading, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 572 (1996) ("Although the commission is entitled to all rational presumptions in favor of its ... by- law, there must be a rational relation between [the commission's] decision and the purpose of the regulations"); see Caires v. Guilding Com'r of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589, 592 (1949) (zoning bylaw is invalid if no substantial relation to the protection of the public welfare); National