2002-TOWN MEETING RECORDS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kelli Lawrence, Esquire October 29, 2002 DAvis MA LM Page 4 DAGOSTINE PC. single use for their properties as of right. See generally Article 22 § 174-25.' This clearly contravenes the well-established doctrine that a zoning regulation must permit at least one use as of right. See Gage v. Town of Egremont, 409 Mass. 345, 348 (1991); SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 107 (1984). Accordingly, the Amendment must be disapproved by the Attorney General. The Regulations of the Amendment on the Whole Are Prohibitively Restrictive The combination of all the prohibitions of the Amendment, which only permit: (1) landowners to use 60 percent of their property; (2) structures with a first floor area less than 20,000 square feet, regardless of lot size; (3) one entranceway to the property; (4) a front setback equal to or more than 75 feet; and (5) parking to the rear and sides of the structure, severely limits landowners from the beneficial use of their properties. In light of these requirements, the Amendment is prohibitively restrictive, effectively excluding any reasonable use of the property, and may be fairly characterized as arbitrary and without reasonable justification. See Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246, 257 (1980) ("A showing must be made, on the record, that there was a reasonable basis for the enactment"). Because no proper basis has been set forth for the burdensome provisions of the amendment, it must be disapproved. The Zoning Amendment Is Unsupported by Substantive Planning Obiectives Massachusetts law requires that a "planning board in any city or town ... shall make a master plan of such city or town or such part or parts thereof as said board may deem advisable and from time to time may extend or perfect such plan." G.L. c. 41, § 81D. In this instance, no planning accompanied the adoption of the Amendment. No studies or plans were prepared or accompanied the Amendment to the Planning Board or Mashpee Annual Town Meeting. In fact, the Planning Board, which voted unanimously in favor of the Amendment just 5 days before the Annual town Meeting, provided no reasons or recommendations with regard to their vote. Moreover, the Town Meeting insisted on voting to adopt the Amendment against the advice of Town Counsel and Fire Chief. As such, it is difficult to discern any reasons or justifiable rationale supporting the adoption of the Amendment. If anything, the swift nature of the Amendment's adoption strengthens the argument that the Amendment was adopted with no legitimate planning objectives whatsoever. See National Amusements, Inc., 29 Mass. App. Ct. at 310-12 (zoning changes are arbitrary and capricious if they lack "roots in planning objectives [with] no better purpose than to 1 The only uses permitted by right in a C-3 District are places of worship, religious schools, government buildings and various agricultural activities, all of which receive special protection or are otherwise exempted from zoning regulation by the Zoning Act. See G.L.c.40A, § 3.