2013 STM AG BYLAW Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

moratorium on building permits in two districts was within city's authority to zone for public purposes). The time limit Lexington has selected for its temporary moratorium (through July 31, 2014) appears to be reasonable in these circumstances, where the final version of the DPH regulations was issued on May 8, 2013, and those regulations are expected to provide guidance to the Town. The moratorium is definite in time period and scope (to the use of land and/or structures for registered marijuana dispensaries), and thus does not present the problem of a rate- of-development by-law of unlimited duration which the Zuckerman court determined was ordinarily unconstitutional. Zuckerman v. Hadley, 442 Mass. 511, 512 (2004) ("[A]bsent exceptional circumstances not present here, restrictions of unlimited duration on a municipality's rate of development are in derogation of the general welfare and thus are unconstitutional.") Because we find the amendments adopted under Article 4 are clearly within the Town's zoning power, and otherwise do not conflict with the laws or Constitution of the Commonwealth, (see Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 154 (1973)), we approve them. I Note: Pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 32, neither general nor zoning by-laws take effect unless the Town has first satisfied the posting/publishing requirements of that statute. Once this statutory duty is fulfilled, (1) general by-laws and amendments take effect on the date these posting and publishing requirements are satisfied unless a later effective date is prescribed in the by-law, and (2) zoning by-laws and amendments are deemed to have taken effect from the date they were approved by the Town Meeting, unless a later effective date is prescribed in the by-law. Very truly yours, MARTHA COAKLEY ATTORNEY GENERAL Ar11111F'A&71 by: Margaret J. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General Chief, Central Massachusetts Division Director, Municipal Law Unit Ten Mechanic Street, Suite 301 Worcester, MA 01608 (508) 792-7600 x 4402 cc: Town Counsel William L. Lahey During our review of Article 4 we have received communications from a town resident urging us to disapprove the amendments on the basis of alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies at Town Meeting and with the Town's by-law submission. We have thoroughly reviewed the issues raised, and have confirmed that the Town complied with all procedural and substantive requirements in the adoption of Article 4. Any alleged failure to comply with procedural requirements(such as by-laws or rules of order)that might govern the conduct of Town Meeting itself is beyond the scope of the Attorney General's standard of review pursuant to G.L.c.40, § 32.In addition, any decision on such allegations would involve consideration of evidence and determination of factual issues outside the bounds of G.L. c. 40, § 32. Therefore,the allegations raised do not provide grounds for the Attorney General's disapproval of Article 4. 2