|
at 795-96, 798-99.
<br /> When reviewing zoning by-laws for consistency with the Constitution or laws of the
<br /> Commonwealth, the Attorney General's standard of review is equivalent to that of a court.
<br /> "[T]he proper focus of review of a zoning enactment is whether it violates State law or
<br /> constitutional provisions, is arbitrary or unreasonable, or is substantially unrelated to the public
<br /> health, safety or general welfare." Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC, 440 Mass. 45, 57 (2003).
<br /> Because the adoption of a zoning by-law by the voters at Town Meeting is both the exercise of
<br /> the Town's police power and a legislative act, the vote carries a"strong presumption of validity."
<br /> Id. at 51. "If the reasonableness of a zoning bylaw is even `fairly debatable, the judgment of the
<br /> local legislative body responsible for the enactment must be sustained."' Id. at 51 (quoting Crall
<br /> v. City of Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 101 (1972)). A zoning by-law must be approved unless
<br /> "the zoning regulation is arbitrary and unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public
<br /> health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Johnson v. Town of Edgartown, 425 Mass. 117, 121
<br /> (1997).
<br /> We are aware of the concern expressed by the opponents that the amendments adopted
<br /> under Article 34 violate the "uniformity principle" reflected in G.L. c. 40A, § 4, alleging that the
<br /> amendments single out two parcels for different treatment and fail to treat like properties in a
<br /> uniform manner. General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 4, requires, "Any zoning ordinance or by-
<br /> law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class
<br /> or kind of structures or uses permitted." "The uniformity requirement is based upon principles of
<br /> equal treatment. . . ." SLIT, Inc v. Planning Board of Braintree, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 107
<br /> (1984). In evaluating whether different treatment violates the uniformity principle, "[p]rimary
<br /> attention is . . . focused on the reasonableness of such classification." Williams, American Land
<br /> Planning Law 32:1 (Rev. ed. 2003). "[A] classification as the means for attaining a permissible
<br /> end is not to be declared invalid `if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would
<br /> sustain it."' Caires v. Building Comm'r of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589, 596-97 (1949) (quoting
<br /> Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342, 357 (1916)).
<br /> The Town can vote to treat certain parcels within the Town differently from other parcels
<br /> so long as the Town does so for a legitimate zoning purpose. Spot zoning only exists when there
<br /> is a "singling out of a particular parcel for different treatment from that of the surrounding area,
<br /> producing, without rational planning objectives, zoning classifications that fail to treat like
<br /> properties in a uniform manner." National Amusements, Inc. v. Boston, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 305,
<br /> 312 (1990), citing Shapiro v. Cambridge, 340 Mass. 652, 659 (1960). Based upon the
<br /> documents submitted to us by the Town Clerk pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 32, we cannot conclude
<br /> that the Town's vote lacks a legitimate planning purpose, or is "arbitrary and unreasonable, or
<br /> substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Johnson v. Town
<br /> of Edgartown, 425 Mass. 117, 121 (1997). On the contrary, the documents submitted by the
<br /> Town Clerk reflect that the Planning Board held several continued hearings over several
<br /> evenings regarding the proposed amendments, and ultimately recommended approval of the
<br /> rezoning with the following statements regarding a legitimate planning purpose:
<br /> After careful review of the impacts expected from the project, the Board
<br /> believes the benefits to the Town will substantially outweigh any negatives, particularly
<br /> in light of incorporated mitigations...
<br /> 2
<br />
|