Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

On appeal, the court held that S 3 prohibited only direct regulation of SFR interior areas. The court held that reasonable dimensional, bulk, ,/ and density requireme~ts that only incidentally affected SFR interiors (\ ') were not prohibited under S 3. The court found the bylaw's regulation of the floor-to-area ratio of SFRs was an incidental regulation of Interior spaces. Accordingly, the court concluded that the bylaw did not violate S 3 and was a proper exercise of the town's zoning power. In so holding, the court rejected Spooner's argument that S 3 should be interpreted, to prohibit a bylaw from having any effect, incidental or otherwise, on the interior area of a SFR. The court noted that S 3 explic- itly permitted regulation of SFRs through,certain zoning devices, includ- ing: bulk, height, setbacks, yard size, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements. The court found that because those permitted zoning devices created a capon the size of any SFR that could be built onany lot, they necessarily affected the interior areas of SFRs. The court . said that to read S 3 as absolute-prohibiting all restriction of SFR in- terior areas-would be illogical because it would: (1) render all of S 3's permitted zoning devices invalid and meaningless; and (2) deprive the town of all ability to regulate density of population and intensity of use created by SFRs-the very purposes of zoning. Rather, the court found the "sensible" interpretation of S 3 was that it: (1) prohibited only direct regulation of SFR interior areas; and (2) allowed regulations that had an incidental effect on SFR interiors. The court found support for that interpretation in the plain language of S 3. Specifically, the court found that the legislature's ~se of both the words "size" and "bulk" in S 3 indicated the legislature's intent that bylaws it ---\ dJ . ! I I 1 1 j I I j I 1 I I ! September 25,20081 Volume 21 No. 18 floor area" of abuilding, and the denominator was the area of the lot on which the building sat. After its permit was rescmded, Spooner filed an action in land court. Spooner claimed that application of the bylaw's floor-to-area ratio to SFRs violated Massachusetts General Laws c. 40A, S 3. Spooner argued that the bylaw regulated the interior of SFRs, which was prohibited by S 3. . Section 3 provided that zoning bylaws could not regulate or restrict the interior area of a SFR. Section 3 allowed only that bylaws could reg- ulate the bulk and height, yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, and parking and building coverage of SFRs. The land court held that the bylaw did not violate S 3 because it regu- lated the exterior of structures and only incidentally affected the interior of SFRs. The land court awarded judgment for the town. Spooner appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. -.-.--" @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 3 75