Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 6 -- March 25, 1997 z.g. Zoning Amendment -- Did rescinded approval deprive plan of statutory freeze? Heritage Park Development Corporation v. Town of Southbridge, 674 N.E.2d 233 (Massachusetts) 1997 In March 1988, Heritage submitted a preliminary subdivision plan for land in Southbridge, Mass. The plan would subdivide the parcel, which would be called Woodstock Heights, into 143 single and two-family homes. The planning board found all the lots complied with the then-applicable frontage and area zoning bylaw and granted its approval. A few months later, in October 1988, Heritage submitted a definitive plan that the board approved, provided Heritage completed the necessary groundwork before construction or conveyance. Heritage and the board agreed no lot would be sold, used or built upon until the groundwork was finished. This covenant also stated plan approval would auto- matically be rescinded if the groundwork were not completed by March 20, 1991. By October t988, the town had amended its zoning bylaw's frontage and area requirements. Under the new bylaw, the Woodstock Heights lots would be too small. The new bylaw also granted an eight-year statutory freeze on "finally approved" plans. Heritage got approval and permits for the groundwork, but by March 20, 1991, the groundwork was not completed. In 1993, Heritage asked the board for an extension of the covenant's construction deadline, and also asked about the possibility of refiling the subdivision plan under the pre-1988 zoning bylaw. The board denied the extension, saying Heritage's failure to complete the groundwork resulted in the approval's automatic denial. The board also informed Heritage that any new or refiled plan would have to conform to the current zoning bylaw. Heritage sued the planning board and asked the court for judgment without a trial. It made two arguments: First, the board's refusal to extend the construction deadline deprived it of the eight-year zoning freeze; second, the property was subject to the pre-1988 bylaw. The court made no decision on Heritage's first argument, but granted it judgment on the second. The board appealed, arguing the plan had been automatically rescinded on March 20, I99i. It said the freeze applied to only "finally approved" plans. Heritage's plan, it said, was not finally approved, but had only conditional approval because it was subject to the March 20 deadline. On appeal, Heritage asked that the eight-year freeze be extended by the length of the legal action, since only a few months remained in the freeze. The board challenged this request because Heritage hadn't asked the first court for an extension. DECISION: Affirmed and modified. The court's decision had to be upheld. The board was correct -- the subdivision plan was automatically rescinded when Heritage failed to complete the required groundwork by the deadline. However, that did not deprive Heritage I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ;i