Roma, III, Ltd. v. Board of Appeals of Rockport
SJC 12278
| Mass. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Roma, III, Ltd. owns 1.62 acres in Rockport (residential A) where Ron Roma, a noncommercial helicopter pilot, established a private heliport (flat lawn with windsock); FAA and Massachusetts Division of Aeronautics conducted airspace reviews and recognized/approved it as a private heliport.
- Rockport building inspector issued an enforcement order: heliports are not allowed in any zoning district; ordered landings to stop and threatened fines.
- Board of Appeals denied Roma’s appeal, concluding the town zoning bylaw permits only listed uses and that a private heliport is not permitted or a customary accessory use; heliport therefore required a variance or special permit.
- Land Court judge, relying on Hanlon v. Sheffield, granted summary judgment for Roma, holding that towns may not enforce zoning that prohibits noncommercial private restricted landing areas unless the town’s bylaw had prior Division of Aeronautics approval.
- Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granted direct review to decide whether state aeronautics statutes preempt local zoning of noncommercial private restricted landing areas (heliports).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state aeronautics statutes preempt local zoning that restricts noncommercial private restricted landing areas | Aeronautics code and §39B show Legislature intended Division oversight; towns cannot bar private heliports unless local rules are approved by Division | Zoning authority over land use is traditionally local; §39B's non-application to noncommercial private landing areas preserves local zoning power | No clear legislative intent to preempt local zoning; towns may require permits/variances without prior Division approval |
| Whether §39B requires Division approval before a town enforces land‑use prohibitions on private restricted landing areas | §39B (5th par.) requires Division approval of local rules regulating use/operation of aircraft, so Hanlon read it to require approval for bylaws affecting private landing areas | §39B's exception for noncommercial private restricted landing areas preserves that class from the approval requirement; zoning regulates land use, not aircraft operation | §39B does not supplant municipal zoning authority; Hanlon was wrongly applied to bar enforcement of local zoning without Division approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Sheffield, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 392 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016) (Appeals Court held local regulations affecting private restricted landing areas required Division approval)
- Harvard v. Maxant, 360 Mass. 432 (Mass. 1971) (upheld local zoning prohibition of a private landing strip as not a permissible residential use)
- Gustafson v. Lake Angelus, 76 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 1996) (distinguished federal regulation of airspace from local land‑use control of landing sites)
- Condor Corp. v. St. Paul, 912 F.2d 215 (8th Cir. 1990) (upheld municipal denial of permit for heliport; no conflict with federal airspace regulation)
- Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1973) (federal preemption recognized in areas of pervasive federal regulation such as aircraft noise and safety)