1986-1999-ZONING BY-LAWS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Commission. Said certification may include conditions and/or limitations deemed necessary to protect the wetlands values of Chapter 172. ,I Failure to comply with the provisions of this section of Chapter 172 shall be due cause to E' enforcement as per section 11. 1 Emergency repairs remain permissible pursuant to section IC The Commonwealth, by statute,provides for wetlands protection in G.L. c. 131, § 40,the Wetlands Protection Act. "When a municipality adopts a by-law or ordinance that is consistent with the Wetlands Protection Act, but that imposes more stringent controls than the standards set by the Legislature,the local requirements trumps what is required under G.L. c. 131, § 40." T.D.J. Development Corp. v. Conservation Commission of North Andover, 36 Mass. App. Ct. j 124, 126 (1994) (emphasis added). For example, T.D.J. upheld a town's by-law that regulated all activity within the buffer zone,not just activity that would"alter"the wetlands area, as provided for in the Wetlands Protection Act. i The issue is whether or not the proposed by-law is inconsistent with the Wetlands Protection Act, or merely an imposition of more stringent controls. The very first paragraph of i the Wetlands Protection Act states that: No person shall remove,fill, dredge or alter . . . other than in the course of j maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing and lawfully located structure or facility used in the service of the public and used to provide electric, gas, water,telephone,telegraph and other j telecommunications services,without filing written notice of his intention to so remove . . . and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions. . .' Thus,under the state law, a utility company may repair or replace an existing utility structure or { facility without filing notice or obtaining an order of conditions. The intent of this exception is to further the state policy requiring uniform regulation of public utilities. A requirement that a utility give written notice, a month in advance, obtain"certification,"and comply with conditions, is inconsistent with expressed state policy to regulate such utilities uniformly. The state policy requiring uniform treatment of utilities has recently been upheld in two slightly different contexts in Boston Gas Company v Somerville, 420 Mass. 702, 704 (1995), and Planning Board of Braintree v Department of Public Utilities, 420 Mass. 22,27 (1995). l Last summer the Supreme Judicial Court held that a Somerville ordinance--requiring utilities to ore opening streets to make repairs--was preempted comply with various local requirements bef i ;I ' The original wetlands act was enacted in 1965;the Legislature added the exemption for utility repairs in Acts 1974, c. 818, § 1. 2 I � i'