Monthly Archives

July 2020

Breaking: Massachusetts Attorney General Strikes Down Municipality’s Attempt to Ban Gas Installations in Buildings


On July 21, 2020, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey struck down a by‑law passed by the Town of Brookline that would have disallowed most construction that included “fossil fuel infrastructure.” The Attorney General’s decision can be found here. This by-law would have prevented gas installations in new or substantially renovated buildings and would have required heat, hot water, and appliances to be all electric starting in 2021, with certain exemptions.

The Attorney General’s Municipal Law Unit is tasked with review of town by‑laws to assure they don’t conflict with state laws or the state constitution. This review is limited, and usually by-laws are approved unless there is a direct conflict. The Attorney General acknowledged the climate change policy behind the Brookline by-law, but confirmed that local laws cannot: (1) conflict with the state building code, (2) conflict with the state gas code, or (3) conflict with state law giving the Department of Public Utilities control over gas distribution.

The Supreme Judicial

Mass. Appeals Court Clarifies How Zoning Cases Can – and Can’t – Be Settled

Practice area:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently decided that a settlement agreement resolving a zoning case brought by the Town of Bourne did not prevent neighbors from obtaining zoning enforcement inconsistent with that settlement. The case, Stevens v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Bourne, involved the use of a property in a residential zoning district as a wedding venue (commercial uses were not allowed). There were two sequential cases involving challenges to the use.

The first case arose from the building inspector’s cease and desist order to the property owner requiring a complete halt to the commercial use. The Town then brought a case in Land Court to enforce the order. That case was settled by an agreement between the Town’s administrative board and the property owner. The settlement agreement included dismissal of the Land Court case with prejudice. Critically, the Land Court did not decide whether the challenged use was lawful. The Building Inspector issued a new cease and desist order consistent with the