Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 15 Zoning Bulletin <br />city. Also, the city could legally make a zoning classification to achieve <br />the objective of preserving this heritage. <br />See also: Kane v. City Council of City of Cedar Rapids, 537 N.W..2d 718 <br />(Iowa 1995). <br />See also: Little v. Winborn, 518 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 1994). <br />Case Note: The Elys had also argued that: the city ordinances re- <br />lated to designating property as historical landmarks denied the Elys <br />due ,process; and the Elys were denied equal protection when the <br />city designated the Martin property a historic landmark. The district <br />court concluded that the designation did not violate the due process <br />or equal protection clauses. The court of appeals agreed. <br />Revocation (of Approval)— Subdivision Plans <br />Are Constructively Approved by Planning <br />Board's Failure to Act Within Statutory Time <br />Period <br />Planning board then rescinds approval, saying it was <br />unintended <br />Citation: Czyoski v. Planning Bd. of Truro, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 151, 928 <br />N.E.2d 987 (2010) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (06/29/10) —This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a planning board can rescind constructive approval (implement- <br />ed under state law because of the board's procedural error) based only <br />on the reasoning that the approval was unintended. <br />The Background/Facts: Judith Czyoski and Andrew Czyoski, as trust- <br />ee of A & B Realty Trust (collectively, the "Owners "), owned property <br />in the town. They sought to develop the property into a 1S -lot subdivi- <br />sion. In furtherance of that plan, they filed a definitive subdivision plan <br />on June 13, 2005, and revised it later that month. After various continu- <br />ances in the proceedings, the town's planning board (the "Board ") voted <br />to deny the approval of the plan. <br />The Owners appealed the denial. They argued that the Board had al- <br />ready constructively approved the subdivision plan because it had failed <br />to act on it within a 90 -day period, as required by state statutory law. <br />Under Mass. Gen. L. c. 41, § 81U, planning boards must follow "strict <br />rules" lest their inaction result in subdivision plans being constructively <br />approved. "For example, to avoid constructive approval of a definitive <br />subdivision plan, a planning board must file with the city or town clerk <br />a certificate of the action that it has taken on that plan within ninety <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />