Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2011 Volume 5 I No. 18 Validity of Ordinance —Town Regulates Off -Street Parking Through General Ordinance Landowner argues parking should have been regulated under zoning powers, requiring compliance with statutory procedure Citation: Spenlinhauer v. Town of Barnstable, 2011 WL 3594493 (Mass. Ct. App. 2011) MASSACHUSETTS (08/18/11)—This case addresses the issue of whether parking limitations contained in a town's general ordinance were invalid because they were improperly regulated by general bylaws when they were actually zoning regulations, the enactment of which re- quired compliance with state statutory requirements. The Background/Facts: On June 1, 2006, the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts (the "Town"), adopted a "Comprehensive Occupancy" ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Among other things, the Ordinance lim- ited the number of people who could occupy a single-family dwelling. The Ordinance also limited the number of motor vehicles that could be parked overnight, off-street and in the open, outside of a single-family dwelling. The Ordinance committed enforcement to "the Building Com- missioner ... the Board of Health ... or the police." Robert J. Spenlinhauer owned a single-family home in the Town. Un- der the formula in the Ordinance, he was permitted to park no more than three vehicles outdoors on his property overnight. Spenlinhauer, however, regularly exceeded the number of permitted vehicles. In June 2007, after receiving complaints from neighbors, the Towns' director of public health issued an order requiring Spenlinhauer cease and desist from exceeding the vehicle parking limit. The order stated that he would be fined, as the Ordinance provided, $100 for each day of violation. Spenlinhauer appealed the order to the Town's board of health. The board of health upheld the order and imposed a $100 fine. Spenlinhauer then brought a legal action in superior court. He chal- lenged the validity of the Ordinance. Essentially, he argued that the Ordinance was invalid because it amounted to an attempt to impose a zoning regulation without following the procedures required under Mas- sachusetts statutory law, G.L. c. 40A. Under Massachusetts law, valid zoning measures can be implemented only by following the procedures spelled out in G.L. c. 40A. Here, the Town did not contend that those procedures were followed. The Town countered with an assertion that the Ordinance was a per- fectly valid health regulation. The superior court agreed with the Town. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9