2016 ATM AG BYLAW Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

as herein provided, affix penalties for breaches thereof not exceeding three' hundred; dollars for each offense,which shall enure to the town or to such uses as it may direct. (Emphasis added.) ;. General Laws Chapter 40, Section 21, recognizes the power of towns to impose penalties for violations of by-laws. However, the maximum penalty allowed under Section 21 is$300 and any penalty imposed greater than $300 would be inconsistent with Section 21. Therefore, we disapprove and delete the above-quoted text in Chapter 78, Section 9 that would allow a fine of $500. The Town may wish to amend its by-laws at a future town meeting to provide for a fine that is consistent with G.L. c. 4Q, § 21. Article 41 - Article 41 adds a new Subsection 4.4, "Residential Gross Floor Area," to Section 4.0 of the Town's zoning by-laws. Subsection 4.4 provides the maximum allowable residential gross floor area for "all buildings on a lot containing a one-family or two-family dwelling." In addition, Subsection 4.4 authorizes the Town's Special Permit Granting Authority to grant a special permit allowing a building to exceed the maximum gross floor area. During our review of Article 41 we received a letter urging our disapproval of the Article on the basis that: (1) the public meetings notices did not adequately inform people of the proposed by-law amendments; (2) no informational materials were provided to residents on the proposed amendments; (3) inaccurate information was given at Town Meeting; (4) the proposed amendments increase the value of certain properties and decrease the value of other properties; and (5) the proposed amendments unfairly impact the elderly population in the Town. As provided in more detail below, we have determined that the asserted deficiencies cited in the opposition letter do not provide grounds for us to disapprove Article 41. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 32, the Attorney General has a "limited power of disapproval," and "[i]t is fundamental that every presumption is to be made in favor of the validity of municipal by-laws." Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793, 795-96 (1986). The Attorney General does not review the policy arguments for or against the enactment. Id. at 798- 99 ("Neither we nor the Attorney General may comment on the wisdom of the town's by- law.") Rather, in order to disapprove a by-law, the Attorney General must cite an inconsistency between the by-law and the state Constitution or laws (emphasis added). Id. at 796. "As a general proposition the cases dealing with the repugnancy or inconsistency of local regulations with State statutes have given considerable latitude to municipalities, requiring a sharp conflict between the local and State provisions before the local regulation has been held invalid." Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass 136, 154 (1973) (emphasis added). "The legislative intent to preclude local action must be clear." Id. at 155. Massachusetts has the "strongest type of home rule and municipal action is presumed to be valid." Connors v. City of Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 35 (1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Attorney General also does not review by-laws for consistency with local law. See G.L. c. 40, § 32. When reviewing zoning by-laws for consistency with the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth, the Attorney General's standard of review is equivalent to that of a court. "[T]he proper focus of review of a zoning enactment is whether it violates State law or 2