|
Z.B. February 10, 2000 page 3
<br />
<br />Board of Dight. on.because he claimed each of the 12 lots had.frontage on a
<br />public way.
<br /> However, the front land for lots ~-9 was wetland b. nd uhsuitable for ~si-
<br />dei~tial :c6nstmction. The upland that'could b'~ bailt'u~bfi was a considerable
<br />distance from the street. The soil conditions caused ~flain'ofthe proposed lots
<br />to be shaped like a boomerang,,.an. "L," an a~ch, 'and~ ~ labyrinth. To reach
<br /> .. . . ~ , ' .- :..-~:-.. '..~'..'~ ~ , ~ ~.- ~ ., ; .-%..? ~.Q ~
<br />projected houses .on'these lots from the public way, lt. would be.necessary to
<br />build biSdgeS.0ver the. wet, abas 'six of °ts, the. bridges w6iad have to
<br />
<br />'::" B~C~i'~e 6f the..'soi'l rlim~&tiis;~'the plan stated ~s~ ~6Uld in'.qtead be
<br /> · .. _.~..:, .,-~.~.~; ..~...; ~. · ,~,:,'.-.~'~'to.o .~ : · '.;, · -.;;:.: -~':f:}-: ' t' '"- ','; : .'. ~' ·
<br />achieved by extension'of an' extstmg-pnvate, way.:~ iplanned, the extension
<br />did not' conform to' width; subbase, 'drainages, or-slCeWalk r .ex_tuire. ments of the
<br />roles and regulations of the, boai-d,:Although the de,v. elopers engineer con-
<br />ceded'building a wetland approa~ch.woula be' affenvironm~ntal and economic
<br /> ..... ' ..... ;> ~.a''~ ' :' ' :ii '':'' ' ' ] ~'"'~' " ' '
<br />calarmtyi he believed it w~ tl!eo, r~g.C ,ally possible. ::":7 .:::; :2' : -' . ':
<br />The planmng board refused to endorse the plan, and the' developer sued.
<br />The developer argued the state subdivision law allowed an owner.to receive a
<br />planning board endorsement on a plan of land that did not show a subdivision:
<br />Under the law, if a plan divided a tract of land into ~w6 or more lots,' Cacti With
<br />a frontage on a public.way equal t° tt~t required by zoning law, it did show a
<br /> · j: ~
<br />subdivision. Gates argued the board s duty was only ministerial because a plan
<br />either had the requisi.te frontage or it ~d not. . .
<br /> The court ordered the board to endorse the pl~, and the board appealed..
<br />DECISION:' Reversed ' ":'
<br />The board was not required to: endorse the plan.':.
<br />A principal goal of the subdivisi°h control 1.a,w was to efi'sUr~ 'effi6i~iii ve-'
<br />hicular access to each lot m a sE~di~s, ton.-If the plan sh,owed efficient-vehicu-
<br /> ~,. . .q'~7~'~-.,,;: ' , .. ~ . '..;:.-.:~'..J' -.:~"x o° ~t:;,,F;~_ . · o ' .i 'd.° ,,%.~ -"-.'~ '?;..' . ~ , -. · -,,- ' .'
<br />lar accesff'was not a pract.~{.a:l, p~ssibility;' thc, boar~.should,'deny'an ANR
<br />
<br /> '" Under prior dems~ons, there,..w..ere '~two categories of access to public ways·
<br /> . .... ~ .... :~:. .....-.~.~ ~-.ll,..r ..i ': ~W*':g~'~-~ I' ° '-;?'' '~ 'r:2'· '"~' ." ' ~'' 'at&- '
<br />One category was could be better, but manageable,-, and the other was illu-
<br />sory.'' The fa:st category Warranteff~ endorsement, while'th6'siX:°nd did not.
<br />The elevated'lengthy and errant "r6i~s (for ex~le} the route to lot 11 had
<br />four changes of direction) to th6¥ublic roadway made access illusory.-
<br /> Deciding the adequacy of the ;~l:;posed private roadway was the purpose
<br />behind the' subdivision control law. The wetland frontage did not have practi-
<br />cal, safe, or efficient access. Co~equbntly, the plan showed a Subdivision and
<br />the ANR was correctly withheld.'. ~:~ - i " ' '
<br />Citation: Gates v. Planning Board of Dighton, Appeals Court of
<br />Massachusetts, No. 98-P-428 (2000)4
<br />see also: Gifford v. Planning Board Df Nantucket, 383 N.E.2d 1123 (1978).
<br />see also: 'Poulos v. Planning Board o~Braintree, 597 N. E.2d 417 (1992).
<br />
<br />
<br />
|