Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

, . ,. ( .' :f .: ~i .'. ~ j "j. r- "--- . ~ }; ,. ~ , , , . ~ . ..i ~ ,r" \J , . -.f ! ! ; , I , . , i rl'.:- : \- , .~ . .. . ~ -1 May 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.1 0 rose's zoning ordinance, Melrose ordered the MBTA to cease and desist the use of the advertisements. The MBTA also sought to erect advertisements on its facilities in the city of Somerville, Massachusetts. Because its signs were to be erected near an interstate highway in Somerville, the MBTA applied to the OAB. The META did not seek permission from any Somerville board or agency. Its advertisements did not comply with Somerville's zoning ordinances. In response to the cease and desist order issued by Melrose, and with the same expected from Somerville, the MBTA filed an action in court. The MBTA asked the court to declare that its commercial advertising on its facilities was immune from local zoning regulation. The cities of Mel- rose and Somerville (cities) also filed an action in court. The cities asked the court to determine whether their zoning ordinances applied to META property. The cities also asked the court to determine whether the OAB had authority to issue permits for the advertisements on MBTA property in their cities. The cities sought OAB authority over the MBTA advertise- ments because, they argued, the OAB was authorized by statute only to issue permits in accordance with local regulations. The actions were con- solidated into one case. The superior court concluded that the advertisements in question were not subject to the cities' zoning regulations. The cities appealed. The MBTA applied to the Massachusetts's highest court, asking for its review of the matter. The highest court granted the request for review. DECISION: Affumed. The court concluded that the MBTA was exempt from the local zon- ing regulations. In so concluding, the court found that it was clear from the plain language of the MBTA's enabling statute that the META had exclusive authority of the advertisements it erected on its facilities. The META enabling statute specifically provided that the META board of direc- tors had the exclusive authority to determine the character a'nd extent of the services and facilities to be furnished. "Facilities" was defined as "all real property, including land, improvements, terminals, stations ... and structutes ...." Nevertheless, the cities had argued that the MBTA should not be ex- empt from their zoning ordinances because the ordinances wouldn6t interfere with the MBTA's essential government function. The court dis- agreed. In disagreeing, the court acknowledged that where an enabling statute created an exemption from regulation for a government entity, the regulation would still apply to the exempt entity under certain cir- cumstances. Specifically, the regulation would still apply to the entity if 3 IF ~ __ . , }:0 _/ 95