ruling that *575 land on which county commissioners were planning to build a jail was not subject to county’s zoning bylaws because a legislatively created entity performing an essential government function is immune from municipal zoning regulations
How later courts described this case
- ruling that *575 land on which county commissioners were planning to build a jail was not subject to county’s zoning bylaws because a legislatively created entity performing an essential government function is immune from municipal zoning regulations
- ruling that land on which county commissioners were planning to build a jail was not subject to county’s zoning bylaws because a legislatively created entity performing an essential government function is immune from municipal zoning regulations
- operating a county jail is an essential governmental function
- construction of new jail not subject to local zoning by-law where such by-law could impede statutory task of jail construction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*718 Wilkins, J.
(dissenting). The only issue of any substance in this case is whether the local zoning by-law (which, under the Home Rule Amendment, may be regarded as having the force of a statute) is to be treated as overriden by a statute that is silent on the right of the county commissioners to disregard local zoning restrictions. I think the court does a disservice not only to the spirit but also to the provisions of the Home Rule Amendment by relying on preHome Rule Amendment decisions to attribute to the Legislature an intention to override local legislation by a statute that is entirely silent on the question. I have no doubt that, under the Home Rule Amendment, the Legislature could properly have authorized the county commissioners to proceed in disregard of local zoning regulations.
Is it as clear as the court’s opinion suggests that the Legislature intended by implication to authorize the county commissioners to place the new county jail in any residential neighborhood of their choice in the county? The county commissioners happened to select a site in which the proposed use may not be substantially incompatible with other uses authorized under the town’s zoning by-law. However, the principle established by the court’s decision is that every grant of the power of eminent domain to a State entity or agency (at least if enacted after the Home Rule Amendment) contains an implied right to disregard explicit, lawful, local restrictions. The inference that the Legislature intended to bar the application of local zoning regulations is not warranted in all the circumstances. Particularly, there has been no showing that the county commissioners cannot achieve their objectives without acting contrary to local zoning regulations. It would be wiser under home rule principles to require the Legislature in cases such as this to be explicit on the subject of overriding local regulations.