Town of Shirley
Zoning audit
7 things worth a decision in
the Protective Zoning Bylaws: 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 Shirley prints it, and
changing any of this is an amendment rather than a correction.
Against the text current through May 11, 2026
Needs a drafting decision 1
The bylaw contradicts itself or is incomplete here. Only Shirley can settle these, and only by amendment — correcting them here would state as law something Shirley has never adopted.
4 cited section number(s) do not exist in the text (5 citations)
[Automated statute and consistency scan, medium confidence.] The bylaw cites sections by number that the converted text does not contain. Some are references to other bylaws or to a superseded numbering; some will be sections the PDF reader failed to recognise. Either way a reader who follows the citation finds nothing.
- § 7.0 cited 2 time(s); e.g. § 4.19: “…under this Section shall be subject to Site Plan Review according to Section 7.0 of this Bylaw.”
- § 11.1 cited 1 time(s); e.g. § 2.9: “…e provisions of this Section, an “Accessory Apartment”, as defined in Section 11.1 of the Zoning Bylaws, shall not constitute a dwelling unit.”
- § 60.3 cited 1 time(s); e.g. § 4.12: “…te, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in §60.3 is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation…”
- § 4.5.6.4 cited 1 time(s); e.g. § 15.6 15.6.6: “…ment or gravel, the driveway shall be constructed to the standards of Section 4.5.6.4 of the Town of Shirley Subdivision Rules and Regulations. All necessa…”
For each number, decide whether it is a stale citation to amend or a section the conversion missed to re-read.
read from the Town's materials
Between the bylaw and the map 2
The bylaw and the zoning map are one instrument, and these are the places where they do not agree.
1 district code(s) the text establishes are not on the map layer
[Automated statute and consistency scan, low confidence.] The bylaw names these districts with a code in parentheses and the map layer we hold has no polygon carrying that code. Overlay districts commonly sit on a separate layer; a base district missing from the map is a gap.
- Text names (MFOD); map has no MFOD
Check whether each is an overlay on another layer or a base district the map should carry.
read from the Town's materials
3 map district code(s) never appear in the bylaw text
[Automated statute and consistency scan, medium confidence.] The zoning map layer carries these district codes, and the converted bylaw text never writes them. Either the map uses abbreviations the bylaw does not (the bylaw may name the district in words), the layer is not the map of record, or the text is stale.
- Map code SV: no match in text
- Map code NSV: no match in text
- Map code GRW: no match in text
Match each code to the district the bylaw establishes by name, in districts.yaml, or replace the layer.
read from the Town's materials
Against the enabling statute 3
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.
§ 2.5 aA child care use appears to need a special permit or be prohibited
[Automated statute and consistency scan, medium confidence.] MGL c. 40A, § 3 protects child care facilities from prohibition, regulation or restriction beyond bulk, height, yard, lot area, setback, open space, parking and building coverage rules, and requires a family child care home to be allowed as of right where residences are.
- § 2.5 a.: “…family dwellings are a permitted use. Where detached single-family dwellings require a Special Permit, family day care homes may be approved by Special Permit from the applicable Special Permit granting authority.”
Check the row against § 3; large family child care homes may be regulated further, small ones may not.
read from the Town's materials
§ 4.2A dA hearing deadline of 45 days differs from § 11's 65
[Automated statute and consistency scan, low confidence.] MGL c. 40A, § 11 requires the special permit granting authority to hold its public hearing "within 65 days after the filing of an application" and to act within 90 days after the hearing. A shorter local deadline is permissible only if the Town in fact meets it; a longer one is not.
- § 4.2A d.: “The Board shall hold a public hearing within 45 days of the receipt of the complete application.”
Confirm whether the figure is the hearing deadline or something else.
read from the Town's materials
§ 4.2A eA hearing deadline of 30 days differs from § 11's 65
[Automated statute and consistency scan, low confidence.] MGL c. 40A, § 11 requires the special permit granting authority to hold its public hearing "within 65 days after the filing of an application" and to act within 90 days after the hearing. A shorter local deadline is permissible only if the Town in fact meets it; a longer one is not.
- § 4.2A e.: “The Board shall make its decision within 30 days following the date of the close of the public hearing. If no action is taken within 30 days, the application shall be deemed approved as submitted.”
Confirm whether the figure is the hearing deadline or something else.
read from the Town's materials
Not published here yet 1
Ours, not Shirley's: things this site does not carry yet.
The zoning map is not published here yet
The district pages read from the code alone. Until the layers are built, a reader cannot go from a place to the rules that govern it, which is half of what this site is for.
Ours.
found by comparison