Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; April 2, 1986; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs sought a special permit to access land under Danvers zoning by-law, but the board of appeals denied their application. In response, they appealed the denial under G. L. c. 40A. 17 and filed an action in Land Court under G. L. c. 185. 1 (jVT) to challenge the zoning by-law's special permit provisions. The court ruled that subsection I of the by-law is the sole criterion for determining access to land in a different zoning district and that subsection K's provisions do not apply. The town appealed, asserting that both subsections must be met for a permit to be issued.
The property in question spans two zoning districts: a 'Residence II' district within 125 feet of Garden Street and an 'Industrial II' district farther back. The plaintiffs intended to use the industrial portion for mini-storage warehousing, necessitating a special permit for access through the residential zone. The legal issue revolves around whether only subsection I applies, as determined by the court, or if subsection K's considerations, such as traffic and drainage, must also be evaluated.
The plaintiffs argue that if subsection K is applicable, the by-law would be invalid under G. L. c. 40A. 4 and 9. Both subsections require compliance, and the court emphasized that conflicting provisions should be interpreted harmoniously. Previous case law, particularly SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, highlighted the invalidation of by-laws that condition all uses in a district on discretionary permits, which could undermine the zoning district's purpose of maintaining predictable land use character.
Subsection 4 restricts local zoning boards from exercising excessive discretion in differentiating land uses among similarly situated landowners. However, it allows towns to recognize unique considerations when permitting access from residential to industrial land, provided sufficient standards are in place. A board of appeals can evaluate if access over residential land would unreasonably affect existing or anticipated residential uses, adhering to the principles established in prior case law. The use of residential land for access to adjacent industrial areas constitutes a zoning violation, prompting a need for conditions under which such violations might be permissible.
Contrary to the by-law in SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, subsection K does not inherently violate the zoning regulations, as special permits for access are acknowledged as potentially beneficial but may require conditions to align with specific district characteristics. Concerns over public street congestion must be considered by the board in residential areas. The validity of the by-law remains intact if both subsections I and K apply to permit issuance. The trial judge's concern over overlapping legal actions regarding the by-law's application is noted, suggesting consolidation of such cases for efficiency.
The case is remanded to the Land Court for a new judgment aligned with these findings. Access to land in a different district is permitted only when no other access is available and must adhere to specific requirements regarding the width, distance from lot lines, and landscaping to ensure visibility and maintenance.
Existing lots of land at the time of the bylaw's adoption, which cannot be utilized for less restricted uses due to configuration and access issues, may be utilized fully for adjoining district purposes, with all relevant bylaw provisions applying. The Board of Appeals serves as the special permit granting authority unless stated otherwise. Special permits granted under this bylaw will expire within two years if substantial use has not commenced or construction has not begun, unless justified by good cause. The authority may impose conditions and limitations to protect the neighborhood and fulfill the bylaw's purpose. Prior to granting a special permit, the authority must ensure: municipal water and sewer systems won’t be overloaded, public streets will not be overburdened (with specific traffic thresholds triggering additional infrastructure requirements), surrounding property values won't be adversely affected, the site is suitable for proposed structures, the use won’t harm the neighborhood, and adequate facilities will mitigate nuisances and hazards. The proposed use must align with the bylaw's general purpose. Relevant laws cite uniformity within zoning districts and outline that specific uses requiring special permits must harmonize with the ordinance's intent and may include conditions or limitations.
