In SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Board of Braintree, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 101, 472 N.E.2d 269 (1984), the Appeals Court discusses the importance of uniformity in zoning laws, and states that G.L. c. 40A sets limits on the exercise of discretion in zoning power by a municipality. In particular, G.L. c. 40A, 4 provides that "any zoning ordinance or by-law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted." The uniformity requirement is based upon principles of equal treatment: all land in similar circumstances should be treated alike, so that "if anyone can go ahead with a certain development [in a district], then so can everybody else." Id. at 107. Special Permits are exceptions to uniformity sanctioned by the Zoning Act; however, the special permitting power does not confer upon a local zoning board a roving or unlimited power to discriminate as to uses between landowners similarly situated. See id. at 108. SCIT points out that uses most commonly subjected to Special Permit requirements are those regarded as troublesome and those considered desirable but which would be incompatible in a particular district unless conditioned. SCIT provides that "the Zoning Act also expressly recognizes ... that Special Permits which authorize increases in density or intensity of use may be conditioned upon the provision of open space, low or moderate income housing, traffic or pedestrian improvements, or other amenities." SCIT, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 109, n. 15. In SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Board of Braintree, the Appeals Court struck down a Braintree zoning bylaw that allowed certain uses in business districts but simultaneously required all new uses in a business district to obtain a special permit. The court held that G.L. c. 40A, 4 creates a "uniformity requirement" mandating that in each zoning district in a municipality, certain uses must be permitted as of right, without the need for approval by a town board holding discretionary powers to deny a permit for that use. SCIT, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 107. This "uniformity requirement," the SCIT court explains, derives from insistence that zoning districts are created to foster land use within them which have a "predictable character," born of principles of equal treatment and designed to insure that if one party can go forward with a certain development, all others can too. Id. These principles limit a municipality from putting all uses into a category dependent on a local tribunal's discretionary case-specific decision. To allow that, SCIT instructs, would confer on local boards "a roving and virtually unlimited power to discriminate as to uses between landowners similarly situated." Id. at 108. The opinion does distinguish between local board decisions which are discretionary enough to result in prohibition of a particular request, and those which only may impose achievable conditions, of which "site plan" type permits are an accepted example. Id. at n. 12 and n. 17. Special permits of this latter type do not run afoul of the concern expressed in SCIT. It is by requiring special permits, at least of the discretionary variety, across the full range of uses in the district that a city or town violates the SCIT rule. Such an approach is inconsistent with the zoning enabling statutes's provisions, which authorize special permit requirements for "specific types of uses." Id. at 109, discussing G.L. c. 40A, 9. The SCIT decision can reasonably be interpreted as saying that once a zoning district is created and certain uses are allowed in that district, the uniformity requirement prohibits communities from requiring the permitted uses -- all of them -- in that particular zoning district to be authorized only by a discretionary special permit.