Town of Spencer Spencer / Code

Town of Spencer

Zoning audit

16 things worth a decision in the Zoning Bylaw: places where it does not agree with something else in it, with the contents, with the zoning map or with the Town's own record of what it has amended, and places where it would be easier to administer written another way. Each names the evidence, and says whose decision it is.

None of them are corrected in the published text. The bylaw on this site reads exactly as Spencer prints it, and changing any of this is an amendment rather than a correction.

Against the text current through November 7, 2024

There is also an audit of the Subdivision Regulations.

Needs a drafting decision 2

The bylaw contradicts itself or is incomplete here. Only Spencer can settle these, and only by amendment — correcting them here would state as law something Spencer has never adopted.

§ 3.4.3The contents lists § 3.4.3 Residential Business; the bylaw has no § 3.4.3

The table of contents Spencer publishes with this bylaw lists “3.4.3 Residential Business”. No provision of that number exists in the text. The district it names is on the zoning map as RB, and other provisions regulate it, so the bylaw administers a district it never establishes.

  • Table of contents: “3.4.3 Residential Business”
  • The body: no provision numbered 3.4.3
  • The district register for RB names no provision that establishes it

A drafting decision for Spencer: either the provision was lost, or the contents names something the bylaw never adopted.

found by comparison

§ 6.5.3§ 6.5.3's temporary-sign provisions are numbered i., a., b., iv.

The run of provisions under § 6.5.3.A.2.a) opens at i., then drops to a. and b. at a deeper indent, then resumes at iv. There is no iii., and under § 6.5.3.A.2.b) the marker iv. is used twice — once for the size limits on temporary signs and once for banners and streamers. A citation to § 6.5.3.A.2.b)(iv) names two different rules.

  • Zoning Bylaw, pages 6-11 and 6-12, as the Town publishes them
  • Under a): i., then a., b., then iv.
  • Under b): i., ii., iv., iv., v.

A drafting decision for the Town. The markers are published here exactly as the Town prints them; renumbering them is an amendment, not a correction.

read from the Town's materials

The amendment record 3

Where Spencer's own record of what it adopted disagrees with the text it adopted, or with itself. These are questions for the Clerk's files rather than for Town Meeting.

§ 4.3An amendment is dated 17 May 2015; no Town Meeting fell that day

The appendix records § 4.3 as amended 17 May 2015. Its own Record of Amendments lists 21 Town Meetings and that is not one of them; the nearest is 7 May 2015.

  • Article Amendments: “Amended 17 May 2015”
  • Record of Amendments: nearest Town Meeting is 7 May 2015

One of the two dates is a typing error. The Clerk's records settle it.

found by comparison

§ 6.1§ 6.1 is called two different things

The bylaw's own heading calls it “Off Street Parking & Loading Requirements”; the table of contents and the amendment record call it “Off Street Parking and Loading Standards”.

  • the bylaw's own heading: “Off Street Parking & Loading Requirements”
  • the table of contents and the amendment record: “Off Street Parking and Loading Standards”

The heading in the text governs. The others are worth reconciling so the three documents can be read against each other by name.

found by comparison

§ 7.1§ 7.1 is called two different things

The bylaw's own heading and the table of contents call it “Zoning Board of Appeals”; the amendment record calls it “Zoning Determination”.

  • the bylaw's own heading and the table of contents: “Zoning Board of Appeals”
  • the amendment record: “Zoning Determination”

The heading in the text governs. The others are worth reconciling so the three documents can be read against each other by name.

found by comparison

Between the bylaw and the map 4

The bylaw and the zoning map are one instrument, and these are the places where they do not agree.

§ 3.2The map § 3.2 adopts is not the map file we hold

§ 3.2 adopts a map “entitled ‘Zoning Map of the Town of Spencer,’ dated November 16, 2006, which shall be on file in the office of the Town Clerk”. The map file in the Town's project materials is stamped DRAFT, dated 9-6-06, and its title block still reads “(fill in Date of Adoption)”. It may well be the same drawing, but on its face it is a draft from ten weeks earlier rather than the map the bylaw adopts.

  • § 3.2: “dated November 16, 2006, which shall be on file in the office of the Town Clerk”
  • The map file supplied: stamped DRAFT, dated 9-6-06, title block “(fill in Date of Adoption)”

Ask the Town Clerk for the copy on file. The district layer should be drawn from the map § 3.2 adopts, not from the draft — and if the two differ, that difference is the boundary of somebody's lot.

read from the Town's materials

§ 3.4.2Floodplain District is established and not on the map

§ 3.4.2 sets this district's boundaries to the special flood hazard areas on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spencer, so the authoritative geometry is FEMA's. The Town's own Official Zoning Map says as much in its legend: "Flood Plain Overlay District is not shown on this map; refer to FIRM Maps."

  • FP is recorded as established with no layer drawing it

Confirm with Spencer whether a layer exists. Where the boundaries are another agency's — FEMA's flood maps, for instance — the absence is the right answer and this note is the record of it.

found by comparison

The map draws land as Water, Right-of-Way, Railroad, Depot Trail, and none of those is a district

The zoning layer records some land under categories the map's own legend lists outside its zoning districts: Water, Right-of-Way, Railroad, Depot Trail. No provision establishes any of them, and none is a statement that the land is outside the zoning scheme — a right-of-way or a pond is ordinarily in whichever district surrounds it. They are published as the map draws them so the land reads as something rather than as a hole.

  • The zoning layer's own values: WATER, ROW, RAILROAD, RAILTRAI

Confirm with Spencer which district each of these sits in, or that the map means them as cartography rather than as jurisdiction.

found by comparison

The zoning map in the 2025 Master Plan shows a different set of districts

Map 5 of the 2025 Master Plan is captioned "Official Zoning Map" and shows R-45 and R-22.5 — the districts Spencer used before the 2006 bylaw replaced them. It does not show RR, SR, LR, VR, TC, C or I. A resident who finds that map first will read their property against a scheme this bylaw repealed.

  • Master Plan 2025, Map 5, captioned “Official Zoning Map”: districts R-45, R-22.5
  • § 3.1 establishes RR, SR, LR, VR, TC, C and I

Worth a correction notice on the Master Plan rather than an amendment to the bylaw.

read from the Town's materials

Against the enabling statute 2

Where the ordinance appears to require, permit or prohibit something the state act it is adopted under does not allow it to. These are readings of two published texts side by side, not legal advice, and each names the provision on both sides so counsel can check it rather than take our word.

§ 7.3§ 7.3 does not carry two of the limits MGL c. 40A § 10 puts on a variance

§ 7.3.2's two mandatory findings track § 10 almost word for word, and § 7.3.1.A's unanimous vote matches § 15 for a three-member board. Two things in § 10 are not reflected. First, use variances: § 10 provides that "except where local ordinances or by-laws shall expressly permit variances for use, no variance may authorize a use or activity not otherwise permitted in the district". Nothing in this bylaw expressly permits them, so none is available, and § 7.3 nowhere says so. Second, conditions: § 7.3.3 lets the Board impose "such conditions, safeguards and limitations as it deems appropriate", where § 10 permits conditions "both of time and of use" but excludes "any condition, safeguards or limitation based upon the continued ownership of the land or structures to which the variance pertains".

  • § 7.3.2.A and B against MGL c. 40A § 10, first sentence
  • MGL c. 40A § 10: “Except where local ordinances or by-laws shall expressly permit variances for use…”
  • MGL c. 40A § 10: “…but excluding any condition, safeguards or limitation based upon the continued ownership…”
  • § 7.3.3: “impose such conditions, safeguards and limitations as it deems appropriate”

Two sentences added to § 7.3 would close both. This is a reading of two published texts side by side, not legal advice, and both sides are cited so counsel can check it.

read from the Town's materials

§ 7.4.2Site plan review exempts Dover-protected uses outright, and § 3 allows them to be reviewed

§ 7.4.2 requires site plan review for "all uses except residential dwellings of three or fewer units or for any exempt use under MGL Ch. 40A Sec.3". § 3 protects religious and educational uses, child care facilities, agriculture and solar installations from being prohibited or made to get a special permit, but each protection is granted "provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements". Those are the very standards § 7.4.8 applies. By exempting the uses from review altogether the bylaw gives up a review the statute leaves open to it, and does so for the largest buildings a residential neighborhood is likely to see.

  • § 7.4.2: “…or for any exempt use under MGL Ch. 40A Sec.3 require site plan review by the Planning Board”
  • MGL c. 40A § 3: “…provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements.”
  • § 7.4.8: the approval criteria, which are drainage, access, parking, screening and grading
  • § 7.4.6: the Town's existing precedent for a reduced review, for small non-residential buildings

A modified site plan review for Dover-protected uses, on the model § 7.4.6 already sets for minor site plans: the dimensional and site standards § 3 leaves open, and none of the discretion it forecloses. Drafting it is a decision for the Town and its counsel.

read from the Town's materials

Worth taking up at the next amendment 5

Nothing here contradicts anything, and nothing here exceeds the statute. These are places where what is written makes the bylaw harder to administer, to cite or to read than it needs to be. Each is still a change only Spencer can make.

§ 4.8.1Five provisions are placeholders with nothing in them

The bylaw carries five numbered provisions whose whole content is a note that they are empty: § 3.4.2.F.1, § 3.4.2.L, § 4.8.1, § 7.4.3.E and § 7.4.3.F. Each takes a number in the sequence, each appears in the table of contents and in this site's search index, and each gives a reader who follows it nothing. § 4.8.1 is the first thing in the section that holds the bylaw's ten special-use regulations.

  • § 3.4.2.F.1: “(reserved for future use)”
  • § 3.4.2.L: “Reserved for Future Use.”
  • § 4.8.1: “Reserved for Future Use”
  • § 7.4.3.E and § 7.4.3.F: “(reserved for future use)”

Strike them at the next amendment. Removing a placeholder renumbers what follows it, which is the only reason to do it in one pass rather than piecemeal.

read from the Town's materials

§ 4.8.11§ 4.8.11 expired in May 2024 and is still numbered in the bylaw

§ 4.8.11 is a heading and nothing else: "ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (Expired May 2, 2024)". The Town's own appendix records it as adopted 9 November 2023 under Article 15 and expired on 2 May 2024. It is not in force, it regulates nothing, and § 4.8.10 now covers battery energy storage systems in full. A section number that exists but states no rule is a citation waiting to be made to nothing.

  • § 4.8.11: the heading “ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (Expired May 2, 2024)” with no text under it
  • Appendix, Record of Amendments: “11/9/2023 art. 15 (Expired May 2, 2024)”
  • § 4.8.10 BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS (BESS), added 2024, regulates the same use

Strike the section. Its expiry is already in the amendment record, so nothing is lost by removing the empty heading from the text.

read from the Town's materials

§ 6.2.5§ 6.2.5.C.2's restrictions are written as sentence fragments in lower case

§ 6.2.5.C.2 introduces "restrictions including but not limited to:" and then lists four items each beginning in lower case with a participle — "prohibiting any additional vehicular access", "stating that said common driveway is a private driveway". Each is a complete requirement that will be quoted on its own in a deed easement, which is what § 6.2.5.C.2 requires them to be recorded as, and quoted alone a fragment reads as an incomplete sentence. The site publishes them exactly as the Town wrote them.

  • § 6.2.5.C.2.a): “prohibiting any additional vehicular access to said lots…”
  • § 6.2.5.C.2.b): “stating that said common driveway is a private driveway and not a town way.”

A wording change for the Town if it wants one. Nothing here is corrected on the way through, and capitalizing them would be an edit to the bylaw's text.

read from the Town's materials

§ 7.2.1§ 7.2.1 is headed "Reserved for future use" and is not reserved

§ 7.2.1 is headed "Special Permit Granting Authority (Reserved for future use)", and it designates both authorities: § 7.2.1.A gives the Planning Board seven named uses and § 7.2.1.B gives the Zoning Board of Appeals everything else. Nothing about it is reserved. The note was added by the 17 November 2016 Town Meeting under Article 14, which is also when the section acquired its content, so the two are likely halves of one amendment that only half landed. A reader looking for who grants a special permit meets the words "reserved for future use" first.

  • § 7.2.1 heading: “Special Permit Granting Authority (Reserved for future use)”
  • § 7.2.1.A: “Planning Board. The Planning Board shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for the following:”
  • § 7.2.1.B: “Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for all other uses…”
  • Appendix, Record of Amendments, § 7.2: Amended 11/17/16 art. 14

Strike the parenthetical. It contradicts the provision it heads, and the correction is four words.

read from the Town's materials

§ 7.4.5§ 7.4.5 sets out what a site plan must contain, at a level of detail regulations usually carry

§ 7.4.5 runs from A to K and specifies sheet contents down to the scale of the locus plan, the contour interval on the drainage plan, and the four impact assessments and their format. § 7.4.7 already lets the Planning Board waive any of it, and § 7.4.12 lets the Town set fees, so the Board is administering a submission standard that only Town Meeting can change. Every revision to a plan requirement, down to a contour interval, needs a two-thirds vote and Attorney General review.

  • § 7.4.5.A: “Locus plan, at a scale of one (1) inch equals five hundred (500) feet”
  • § 7.4.5.C: “existing and proposed final topography at two foot intervals”
  • § 7.4.7: “The Planning Board may, upon written request of the applicant, waive any of the requirements of Section 7.4”
  • § 4.8.7.G: the wind facility section already delegates its procedure — “The Planning Board may adopt rules and regulations for the purpose of administering the provisions of this Section”

Replace § 7.4.5 with a provision requiring a site plan prepared in accordance with rules and regulations the Planning Board adopts, and move the present contents into those rules. § 4.8.7.G is the bylaw's own precedent for the delegation. This is a recommendation rather than a defect.

read from the Town's materials

↑