Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin the regulation served an important purpose and had no effect or only a negligible effect on the entity's ability to fulfill its essential government function or an action reasonably related to its ability to fulfill its essen- tial government function. The court found those circumstances were not present in the case. The court found the regulation of commercial advertising in or on the MBTA facilities through the cities' zoning ordinances would have more than a negligible effect on the MBTA's ability to raise revenue. The court also found that the MBTA's ability to raise revenue was an action reason- ably related to the MBTA's ability to carry out its essential government function of providing mass transportation services. Because they would have more than a negligible effect on the MBTA's essential government function, the court concluded that the MBTA was exempt from the regu- lation of commerCial advertising in. or on the MBTA facilities through the cities' zoning ordinances. The court also concluded that the OAB did not have jurisdiction over the MBTA's Melrose advertisements. The cities had argued that the OAB could regulate the MBTA's Melrose signs because the OABhad the au- thority to adopt regulations for control of advertisements on common carriers and the MBTA was a common carrier. The court rejected that argument, finding the MBTA was not a common carrier. The court said the definition of "common carrier" usually applied only to private cor- porations, not public corporations like the MBTA. Melrose had also argued that the OAB was required to regulate the MBTA signs in Melrose because it was required by statute to regulate signs erected by government units. Again, the court rejected that argu- ment. The court said the statute only authorized the OAB to regulate ad- vertisements "on public ways or on private property." Finding that the MBTA property in Melrose was neither a public way nor a private facil-. ity, the court concluded that the GAB did not have authority to regulate the advertisements on that property. Somerville had also argued that the GAB was authorized by statute only to issue permits in accordance with lpcal regulations and that since the permit granted to the MBTA violated Somerville's zoning ordinance it should not have been issued. The court also rejected this argument. The court noted that the OAB was authorized to issue permits for adver- tisements that complied with "applicable ordinances and bylaws." The court concluded that where the MBTA was exempt from local zoning or- dinances-as it found it was with regard to its advertisements in Somer- ville-the OAB did not err in issuing permits that did not comply with those ordinances. See also: Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. Town of North Andover, 439 Mass. 16, 785 N.E.2d 337 (2003). 4 . . ,----._~_._-:----".... . .... , 96 \. ~ fF :ii-,_. ~. . c~ (.: (