The Appeals Court upheld the
Superior Court in a recent decision concerning the disapproval of a subdivision
plan in F&D Cent. Realty Corp., Inc.
v. Planning Bd. of Bellingham, 86 Mass.App.Ct. (October 14, 2014). The
Appeals Court, noting Judge Richard T. Tucker’s thoughtful findings and
detailed analysis, agreed that the Town of Bellingham planning board “exceeded
the scope of its authority.” Citing Sealund
Sisters, Inc.[1]
and Beale[2],
the court held that a planning board may not base its reasons for disapproval
on requirements beyond those prescribed in the rules and regulations, or
exercise its discretion to import its own standards.
The Superior Court determined,
and the Appeals Court agreed, that the reasons given by the Planning Board for
disapproval of the subdivision plan was outside its authority under its rules
and regulation.
The court found that Planning
Board applied an erroneous standard in finding that Section 324(F) raises sight
distance concerns for the developer at a certain intersection of two public
ways, as 324(F) only applies to intersections of access ways and subdivision
proposed streets. The court also held that the Planning Board exceeded its
authority by disapproving the subdivision in part on a finding of the
applicant’s noncompliance with Section 26, reasoning, simply, that the board
did not set forth how Section 26 had been violated. Furthermore, the judge held
that Section 324(F) also did not apply to the “Environmental Analysis”, for the
same reasons, while also crediting the developer’s traffic expert. In
addressing the board’s fourth reason for disapproval, the judge found, and the
Appeals Court agreed that evidence produced at trail was insufficient to
establish any other hazards of a certain street as an access to the
subdivision. Likewise, the judge concluded that a rule and regulation cited by
the board did not apply to access roads to a subdivision. Finally, the court
held that the board’s sixth reason that “[t]he project is not consistent with
the purposes of the Subdivision Control Law” was not “elucidated” in the
board’s decision or in its submissions to the court.
The Appeals Court rejected the
Planning Board’s argument that it acted within its authority, and that the
judge erred in failing to give deference to the board’s interpretation of its
own rules, regulations and findings of fact stating: “[a]lthough deference is
given to a board in granting a special permit or waiver, here, such deference
was not warranted where the reasons stated for disapproval fell outside the
provisions of the rules and regulations.”
Christopher J. Alphen, J.D.
Alphen & Santos,
P.C.
200 Littleton
Rd.
Westford, MA 01886
