Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. December 10, 1997 -- Page 5 <br /> <br /> Zoning Change -- Board says owner tried to 'beat the clock' on zoning <br /> amendment <br /> Bisson v. Plam~h~g Board of Dove~; 684 N.£.2d 7 (Massachusetts) ]997 <br /> <br /> Bisson owned a 33-acre parcel with buildings in Dover, Mass. He wanted <br /> to divide the property into two parcels, one of 30 acres and one of three acres. <br /> Bisson submitted his plans to the city planning board, seeking its endorsement <br /> that subdivision approval wasn't needed. <br /> The town zoning ordinance stated if the board found the plan didn't require <br /> approval under the subdivision ordinance, "it shall forthwith, without a public <br /> hearing, endorse thereon ... the words 'approval under the subdivision control <br /> law not required' ... Such endorsement shall not be withheld unless such plan <br /> shows a subdivision" (emphasis added). <br /> The ordinance defined a subdivision as the division of a tract of land into <br /> two or more lots~ It also stated, however, the division of a lot was not a <br /> subdivision if every lot within the tract as divided would meet the minimum <br /> frontage requirements in effect when the application was made. When Bisson <br /> submitted his request, the zoning ordinance required a minimum street frontage <br /> of 200 feet. There was an exception for lots large enough to contair a "perfect <br /> square" and that had frontage of at least 100 feet. Bisson's proposed lots met <br /> these requirements. <br /> The board considered Bisson's application on Oct. 24, but deferred its <br /> decision until it consulted with town counsel. The board continued its <br /> consideration of the plan on Oct. 29, but did not endorse it. <br /> On Oct. 30, the town amended its zoning regulation to require 200 feet of <br /> frontage and the "perfect square" requirement. The town then refused to endorse <br /> Bisson's application as not needing subdivision approval, stating he needed <br /> subdivision approval because his plan didn't meet the zoning ordinance's <br /> frontage requirements as amended. <br /> Bisson appealed to court, claiming the planning board improperly deferred <br /> endorsing his application until after the zoning law was amended. He argued <br /> the board had no choice but to endorse his plan immediately because it wasn't <br /> a subdivision as defined by the ordinance at the thne he applied. He noted the <br /> ordinance stated that if a plan didn't require approval, the board "shall forthwith" <br /> endorse a plan and its endorsement "shall not be withheld" unless the plan <br /> showed a subdivision. <br /> The board claimed it had 21 days to act on the plan regardless of when it <br /> found the plan wasn't a subdivision. It relied on another part of the ordinance <br /> which stated that if the board failed to act on a plan within 21 days, the board <br /> was deemed to have found subdivision approval wasn't needed. The board <br /> also claimed Bisson acted inappropriately by trying to "beat the clock" by <br /> submitting his plan before the vote on the zoning amendment. <br /> The court found the board acted improperly by delaying its decision on <br />· Bisson's application until after the zoning ordinance was amended so that it <br /> <br /> <br />