1986-1999-ZONING BY-LAWS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i §40,provides for a similar state purpose: uniform and efficient public utility service.3 i A review of some of the individual cases that have discussed local wetlands by-laws provisions in contrast to the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act helps distinguish instances when a local by-law is merely more stringent than state law from situations, such as l E' this,in which the local by-law is inconsistent with the principal purpose of a uniform state law. In Southern New England Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v Burlington, 21 l Mass. App. Ct. 701 (1986),the court upheld the local by-law's establishment of a wetlands district that included within it land that would not be "wet"under the definitions in the Wetlands Protection Act and the regulations adopted by the then specified state agency. Southern New , England Conference also rejected a church's claim that,because it was exempt from local zoning under G.L. c. 40A, § 3, it was exempt from local wetlands regulation. However,the court contrasted the treatment of agricultural and religious uses in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, and c. 131, § 40: [These sections of both acts] dealing with the preservation of agricultural uses . . . appear to reflect a desire on the Legislature's part to strike a balance between I competing preservation policies (i.e.,those of conserving agricultural lands while preserving wetlands). These laws appear to insure minimum regulation of agricultural lands but render encroachment of these lands onto wetlands subject to State scrutiny. There is no similar exemption [in c. 131, § 40] for religious uses. Southern New England Conference, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 707 n. 7. Utility repairs, like j agriculture, but unlike religious uses, are exempted in both G.L. c. 40A, § 3, and in c. 131, § 40. I In Lovequist v. Conservation Commission of Dennis, 379 Mass. 7 (1979), a local j wetlands by-law was argued to be inconsistent with the Wetlands Protection Act because the Act provided for appeal to a state agency,while the local by-law did not. The court did not find this J to be inconsistent with a state purpose because "a person aggrieved by a [local conservation] commission decision under the by-law is in no way deprived of rights of review." Lovequist, 379 Mass. at 16. By contrast, Mashpee's local by-law would force a utility's customers to bear the expense of an application and compliance with conditions,which are exactly that which the state law says a utility should not be required to obtain or do. i al Accordingly,because Mashpee's proposed new by-law would frustrate the purpose of the i j 3 The new Rivers Act, enacted by the Legislature as Acts 1996, c. 258, amends the Wetlands Protection Act provides new protection for"riverfront area,"which terms includes land j within 200 feet from a river. G.L. c. 131, § 40,¶ 15. "Nothing in the act shall be construed to compromise or in any way diminish the protections and exemptions provided for in [G.L. c. 131, §40] and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and provided further,that such protections and exemptions shall extend to the riverfront area as defined in this act." This language extends the Public utilities exemption to the riverfront area. 4 � '