Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
| The main points in each letter submitted to the Attorney General's Office are outlined here. From Edens & Avant, they maintain that the by-law is procedurally deficient because: it was improperly submitted for inclusion on the warrant by a single member of the Board of Selectmen, it was improperly submitted for inclusion on the town meeting warrant after the deadline for such submissions had passed, that Driscoll's procedure in submitting the by-law for inclusion on the warrant was not properly adopted and compliance with its requirements does not render the by-law valid; also they claim the town's submission to the Attorney General is flawed because it fails to include explanation of the by-law required by statute, the maps and plans necessary to permit the Attorney General to fully assess the impact of the by-law, or a description of the Planning Board's report; they claim there are substantive deficiencies of the by-law because it improperly targets a specific project, protects a specific business from competition and is not substantially related to the public health, safety or welfare of the community, that the by-law amounts to a form of discriminatory spot-zoning, that it improperly regulates business ownership rather than land use, that the by-law is impermissibly vague, and that it violates the uniformity principle of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. In response, East Longmeadow First's letter claims that there are inaccuracies, omissions and extraneous materials in Edens & Avant's memorandum; that the Attorney General has a narrow scope when reviewing local zoning enactments; that minor procedural defects which do not prejudice anyone are not a proper basis for invalidating the expressed will of the town meeting enacting a zoning amendment; that the zoning amendment complies with state law governing town meeting warrants and that noncompliance with local regulations is not a proper basis for invalidation by the Attorney General; that the zoning amendment has a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and if the developer wishes to challenge its validity that they should seek an advisory opinion from the Land Court instead of asking the Attorney General to short-circuit the judicial process; that the by-law does not violate the uniformity principle of the Massachusetts Zoning Act; that the remaining substantive arguments in Edens & Avant's letter are without merit; that the town's submission to the Attorney General may be amended or supplemented if it is deficient; that attacks on local citizens exercising their constitutional rights to oppose the adverse community impact of "big box" retailers should be ignored by the Attorney General. |