Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed a Superior Court decree concerning the legitimacy of a North Andover zoning by-law that permitted motel construction across any district following a public hearing and planning board site plan review. The plaintiffs challenged this by-law, asserting that it restricted the planning board’s role to administrative oversight. In contrast, the defendants argued that the planning board was endowed with discretionary authority to approve motel applications based on specific criteria. The court determined that the by-law improperly delegated discretionary zoning powers to the planning board, equating them to those of a board of appeals, without the requisite statutory authorization as mandated by General Laws chapters 40A and 41. The decision referenced precedence from cases such as *Burnham v. Board of Appeals of Gloucester* and *Building Commr. of Medford v. C. H. Co.*, highlighting the necessity of explicit legislative delegation. Consequently, the court invalidated the sections of the by-law pertaining to motels (sections 4.5 to 4.55) and affirmed the Superior Court’s decree that declared these sections and the associated motel permits invalid due to the unauthorized delegation of zoning authority.
Legal Issues Addressed
Invalidation of Unauthorized Zoning Ordinance Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court invalidated sections 4.5 to 4.55 of the by-law due to the unauthorized delegation of zoning power, aligning with precedent that prohibits such delegation to subordinate boards without explicit legislative authority.
Reasoning: The Superior Court's decree declaring sections 4.5 to 4.55 of the by-law invalid and the motel permits issued to the Filettis as invalid is affirmed, reversing the previous decree.
Permit Requirements and Planning Board Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The by-law's requirement for planning board approval of motel permits was scrutinized, with the court determining that the planning board was improperly delegated discretionary powers, rendering the sections of the by-law concerning motels invalid.
Reasoning: The by-law mandates that a permit is necessary and that its approval is contingent upon adherence to specific rules outlined in the permit provisions.
Zoning Authority and Delegation under General Laws Chapters 40A and 41subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the North Andover zoning by-law appropriately delegated discretionary zoning authority to the planning board, concluding that such delegation was invalid because it improperly conferred powers equivalent to those of a board of appeals without statutory authorization.
Reasoning: The court found that the authority granted to the planning board was essentially equivalent to the board of appeals' power to grant exceptions, affirming the legitimacy of the by-law's provisions concerning motels.