Facts: In 1972, the Legislature empowered the State board of building
regulations and standards (board) to adopt and administer a state building
code. Pursuant to this authority, the board set forth four alternatives for
required fire protective signaling systems and automatic fire detection
systems, which alert local fire departments when an alarm has been sounded. In
November, 2006, Title 7 of the Springfield city ordinances, entitled “Health
and Safety,” was amended with the enactment of the ordinance. The ordinance
requires that all buildings in the city utilize the fourth option contemplated
by the code. Failure to
comply “shall be punished by a fine of One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per calendar day”
and “each calendar day on which the violation
exists shall be deemed to be a separate offense.”
The plaintiff, St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral
of Western Massachusetts, Inc. (church), installed
a system of the sort set out as the first
alternative in the relevant code provision during April of 2009. After an
inspection by the city's fire department in
June of 2009, the city sent an “invoice”
detailing a $3,000 “violation fine” owed by the
church.
Procedural
History: The church appealed to the board. The board held that it does not
have jurisdiction to grant the church the specific relief it seeks because the
board is without authority to strike down an ordinance. The church then filed an
action in the Superior Court seeking summary judgment declaring the ordinance
and its penalty provision invalid. The Superior Court allowed the church’s
motion. The city appealed.
Issue: Does State Building Code preempt local ordiance?
Holding: The Supreme Judicial court held that State Building Code preempted local
ordinance.
Rulings of Law: The Home Rule Procedures Act made it clear that any city or town may not
exercise any power or function by adopting local ordinances that are
inconsistent with the constitution or laws enacted by the general court. In assessing the inconsistency of local
enactments with the General laws, “the legislative intent to preclude local
action must be clear.” Either legislation has made an explicit indication of its
intention, or the purpose of State legislation intended to preempt the field. The
Legislature has inferred its intent to preempt local ordinances since the
Legislature has explicitly limited the manner in which cities and towns may act
on that subject. Where the Legislature demonstrates its intention to preempt
local action, inconsistent local regulations are invalid under the Home Rule
amendment. To allow a locality to impose additional requirements and
“second-guess the determination of the State board would frustrate the purpose”
of the general law. If all municipalities in the Commonwealth were allowed to enact
similarly restrictive ordinances and bylaws, a patchwork of building
regulations would ensue. Whether construing the Legislature's stated intention
of ensuring uniformity in building regulations either as an explicit statement
of its desire to foreclose local action, or as a statutory purpose that would
be frustrated thereby, the ordinance cannot stand.
Disposition: Judgment affirmed. (EC)
