Agenda Text
title
Assistant City Solicitor responding to #202781 re: whether resident parking stickers may be limited for properties that request off-street parking relief from the Special Permit Granting Authority.
body
Official Text
Dear Honorable Board Members:
You have asked whether the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) may lawfully limit resident parking stickers for properties that request off-street parking relief from the SPGA and whether the Parking Department is authorized to limit parking stickers in such developments. It is my understanding that the key goals of the limitation are as follows: a) to encourage new residents of the City to keep fewer cars (or no cars); b) to permit residential growth without one of its most substantial community impacts (additional pressure to on-street parking; c) to reduce the need for abutters to demand more off-street parking, along with all of the negative impacts that come from additional off-street parking; d) to reduce traffic congestion; e) to encourage the use of public transportation; and f) to attempt to reduce the utilization of a scarce commodity in the City (on-street parking).
It is my understanding that properties which already have resident parking permit stickers will be permitted to continue to obtain resident parking permit stickers, resulting in a situation in which there is ultimately a classification of properties afforded the privilege of obtaining a resident parking permit.
In my opinion, provided that similarly situated applicants for new developments are afforded similar treatment, the Special Permit Granting Authority may lawfully limit resident parking stickers for properties that request off-street parking relief from the SPGA. Furthermore, in my opinion, the Traffic and Parking Department is authorized to limit stickers on such developments, through either a change in the Traffic and Parking Regulations, or enforcement of a condition of a special permit issued by the Special Permit Granting Authority.
Although there is no caselaw directly on point, the law is well-settled that legislative classifications need not be perfect in order to survive a challenge on equal protection grounds. Commonwealth v. Petralia, 372 Mass. 452 (1977). The basic question is whether the classification made by the regulation rationally furthers a legitimate government purpose. Opinion of the Justices, 368 Mass. 857, 861 (1975). The Equal Protection Clause requires only that the distinction drawn by an ordinance rationally promote the regulation’s objectives. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that “reliance interests” are rational, i.e. legitimate expectations due to a change in position, and will support classifications. City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976).
In my opinion, a regulation that results in the reduction in resident parking stickers furthers the government interests articulated in the goals of the limitation. Furthermore, in my opinion, the SPGA may reasonably conclude that a new development applicant does not have the same reliance interests as an owner of an existing development, who has already completed the development and may have acquired a legitimate expectation in obtaining a parking permit.
Therefore, in my opinion, the SPGA may lawfully limit resident parking permit stickers for properties that request off-street parking relief. I recommend that the Board consider the practical and administrative implications of such a decision.
Very truly yours,
David P. Shapiro
Assistant City Solicitor