Mbta v. City of Somerville

• Decision Date: 04 April 2008
• Docket Number: SJC-10064.
• Citation: 883 N.E.2d 933,451 Mass. 80
• Parties: MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY & others v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE & another<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> (and two companion cases<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL>).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

883 N.E.2d 933

451 Mass. 80

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY & others v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE & another¹ (and two companion cases²).

SJC-10064.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued February 7, 2008.

Decided April 4, 2008.

David P. Shapiro, Assistant City Solicitor, for city of Somerville.

David R. Lucas, Wakefield, for city of Melrose.

Brian A. Davis (Jean-Paul Jaillet with him), Boston, for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

Iraida J. Alvarez, Assistant Attorney General, for Outdoor Advertising Board.

George A. Berman, Boston, for Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., was present but did not argue.

Present: GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, & BOTSFORD, JJ.

SPINA, J.

In these consolidated cases, we consider whether the cities of Melrose and Somerville (cities) may regulate through their zoning ordinances billboards and signs for commercial advertising in and on the facilities of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). The MBTA filed an action in the Superior Court in Suffolk County seeking a judgment declaring that the MBTA's commercial advertising in and on its facilities is immune from local zoning regulation. The cities subsequently filed an action in the Superior Court in Middlesex County regarding the applicability of local zoning ordinances to MBTA property and regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the Outdoor Advertising Board (board) to issue permits for the advertisements in question. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Clear Channel), later was allowed to intervene as a plaintiff in the case brought by the MBTA. The actions were consolidated in the business litigation session of the Superior Court in Suffolk County. On a motion for judgment on a case stated and on cross motions for summary judgment, a judge concluded that the advertisements in question were not subject to the cities' zoning regulations. The cities appealed, and we granted the MBTA's application for direct appellate review. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the facts agreed on by the parties. The MBTA is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth and a body politic and corporate. G.L. c. 161A, § 2. It has the power to provide mass transportation services and to operate and manage facilities used in connection with those services. G.L. c. 161A, §§ 1, 3 (c) & (i). The MBTA has erected outdoor advertisements on its facilities in Melrose, and seeks to erect others on its facilities in Somerville. To erect these advertisements, the MBTA has worked with Clear Channel and Titan Outdoor LLC (Titan), two outdoor advertising companies.

In Somerville, Clear Channel (with the MBTA's knowledge and permission) applied to the board for permission to erect advertisements on certain MBTA facilities, and the board issued permits therefor.³ Neither the MBTA nor Clear Channel sought permission from any Somerville board or agency. The parties agree that the advertisements, if they are subject to Somerville's zoning ordinances, would not comply with them.⁴ The parties agree, in addition, that "Somerville's attempt to compel compliance with [its zoning ordinance] and the likely issuance of a cease and desist order by Somerville and the possible imposition of fines and penalties if Clear Channel and/or the MBTA proceed with the erection of the Somerville Signs are adversely affecting and frustrating the MBTA's and Clear Channel's ability to generate revenue from those signs."

In Melrose, Titan (with the knowledge and approval of the MBTA) already has erected advertisements on MBTA property. Neither the MBTA nor any other entity applied to the board or to Melrose for permits to erect these advertisements.⁵ The city solicitor of Melrose requested that the board order the MBTA either to apply for permits pursuant to G.L. c. 93, §§ 29-33, or to remove its advertisements. The board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the advertisements. The Melrose building commissioner and zoning enforcement officer later informed the MBTA that they believed two of the advertisements on MBTA facilities violated the Melrose zoning ordinance and ordered the MBTA immediately to cease and desist the use of such advertisements. The MBTA refused. The parties agree that the advertisements, if they are subject to Melrose's zoning regulations, would not comply with them.⁶,⁷ The parties agree, in addition, that the "enforcement of the Cease and Desist Order issued to the MBTA by Melrose with respect to the Melrose Signs, and the possible imposition of fines and penalties if the MBTA does not comply with that Order, would adversely affect and frustrate the MBTA's ability to generate revenue from those signs."

Discussion. Where a statement of agreed facts contains all the material facts on which the rights of the parties are to be determined in accordance with law, it constitutes a "case stated." Caissie v. Cambridge, 317 Mass. 346, 347, 58 N.E.2d 169 (1944). As such, "[t]he inferences drawn by the trial judge from the facts stated are not binding upon us, and questions of fact as well as questions of law are open for review upon these appeals." Id.

"The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120, 571 N.E.2d 357 (1991). "An order granting or denying summary judgment will be upheld if the trial judge ruled on undisputed material facts and his ruling was correct as a matter of law." Commonwealth v. One 1987 Mercury Cougar Auto., 413 Mass. 534, 536, 600 N.E.2d 571 (1992). In the present case, there are no material facts in dispute, and we have viewed all facts in the light most favorable to the cities.

The cities argue that the judge erred in concluding that the advertisements in or on MBTA facilities are not subject to their local zoning ordinances. Although the parties agree that the advertisements are located on MBTA facilities, the cities argue that under the MBTA's enabling statute, G.L. c. 161A, only services, equipment, and facilities are exempt from local regulation and that the advertisements in question are not services, equipment, or facilities.

The MBTA enabling statute, in an exemption clause, provides that the MBTA board of directors, except as otherwise provided in G.L. c. 161A, has the duty to "determine the character and extent of the services and facilities to be furnished, and in these respects their authority shall be exclusive and shall not be subject to the approval, control or direction of any state, municipal or other department, board or commission except the [MBTA's] advisory board." G.L. c. 161A, § 3 (i). The statute defines mass transportation "facilities" as "all real property, including land, improvements, terminals, stations, garages, yards, shops and structures appurtenant thereto ... used in connection with the mass movement of persons." G.L. c. 161A, § 1.

The cities concede that the advertisements are located on MBTA facilities. The exemption clause in G.L. c. 161A, § 3 (i), gives the MBTA board exclusive authority to determine the character and extent of its facilities. It thus would appear that, on the face of the statute, the determination by the MBTA board whether and what type of advertisements to erect on its facilities is a determination as to the character of its facilities. As such, it is included within the exclusive authority of the MBTA board, and therefore the MBTA is exempt from local zoning regulations with respect to advertisements erected on its facilities.

The cities nevertheless argue that, with respect to the advertisements at issue here, the MBTA should not be exempt from the cities' zoning ordinances because those ordinances will not interfere with the essential government function of the MBTA, namely, mass transportation, or with an action reasonably related to that function.

Where an enabling statute creates an exemption from regulation, a statutorily created entity is not necessarily exempt from all regulation. See, e.g., Boston v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 364 Mass. 639, 653, 655, 658, 308 N.E.2d 488 (1974); Village on the Hill, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Auth., 348 Mass. 107, 118, 202 N.E.2d 602 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 955, 85 S.Ct. 1089, 13 L.Ed.2d 971 (1965). A regulation generally will apply to an exempt entity where that regulation serves an important purpose and either would have no effect at all or a merely negligible effect on the entity's ability to fulfil its essential government function or an action "reasonably related" to its ability to fulfil that function.⁸ See Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. North Andover, 439 Mass. 16, 22, 785 N.E.2d 337 (2003); Bourne v. Plante, 429 Mass. 329, 332, 708 N.E.2d 103 (1999).

In the present case, the zoning ordinances will have more than a negligible effect on action reasonably related to the MBTA's ability to fulfil its essential function. The MBTA's essential function is to provide mass transportation services. See G.L. c. 161A, § 3. The parties agree that "[i]ncome that the MBTA generates, directly or indirectly, from commercial advertising in and on MBTA facilities and properties—including the advertising revenue received from Clear Channel and Titan—is used by the MBTA to help defray the costs of its transportation operations."

Furthermore, the statutory scheme creating the MBTA creates a direct relation between the MBTA's provision of mass transportation services and the revenues that it must raise from nontransportation sources. The Legislature specifically has authorized the MBTA to raise revenues through commercial advertising and has required the MBTA to maximize revenues from all nontransportational revenue sources. G.L. c. 161A, §§ 3 (n),⁹ 11.¹⁰ Accordingly, the MBTA is required by statute to maximize its revenues from...