Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

\ . Zoning Bulletin the neighboring subdivision, which WSDC had, as a party to that devel- opment, agreed to. Moreover, it concluded that the Board had the power to m~ke that restriction. It said the rights of an easement holder such as WSDC were, in the context of subdivision control, subject to the su- pervening power of a planning board to refuse to approve a subdivision plan that would contravene its regulations and zoning laws. The Board also held that S 8.5 of the town's by-law was invalid. However, it disagreed with the land court's conclusion that it was in- valid' because it was in conflict with the uniformity requirement of Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, S 4. Rather, the court found that the by-law and the power it gave to the Board "to reject so called 'conventional plans' (i.e., plans in total compliance with applicable laws and regulations)" more squarely conflicted with the state's subdivision control law, Mass. Gen. L. c. 41, S 8M. That law required planning boards to approve any subdivision plan filed with the planning board that conformed to the recommendation of the board of health and the reasonable rules and regulations of the planning board for subdivisions. Section 8.5 clearly conflicted with the requirements of the state's subdivision control law, found the court, because it allowed the Board to disapprove a "conven- tional" subdivision plan that conformed to regulations and instead ap- prove an "alternative" plan. See also: Emery v. Crowley, 371 Mass. 489, 359 N.E.2d 1256 (1976). See also: Pieper v. Planning Bd. of South borough, 340 Mass. 157, 163 N.E.2d 14(1959). Timeliness/Estoppel-Applicant faxes motion for rehearing after 5:00 p.m. on statutory deadline date Lower court refuses to hear applicant's appeal, citing applicant's failure to timely file motion CitatioA: Cardinal Development Corp. v. Town of Winchester Zoning Bd. of'iAdjustment, 2008 'WL 4489666 (N.H. 2008) 4 . ,-.. NE:W HAMPSI-IlRE (10/0 8/0 8)-In November 2006, Cardinal Devel- opmpnt Corporation ("Cardinal") applied to the town's Zoning Board of .a~justment ("ZBA") for a special exception to excavate loam, sand, gr~,~ef, and stone. After holding a hearing, the ZBA denied the applica- tioh on January 4, 2007. . Pursuant to New Hampshire statutory law (RSA SS 677:2 and 677:3), Cardinal then had thirty days to move for rehearing before 8 @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 40 f.~) . ! ;i :1 :i :i Ii :1 'I ;, II ij Ii I it Ii i1 11 ., II i1 II il li . II I' .1 ti. 11 II II il II 11 II II II I, II , II I I , ,I .! II I' 'I II I I li. 1\