Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1996

Home

Z.B. February 1996 -- Page 5 . The county appealed the board's findings of error, and Fence appealed its failure to address his constitutional claims. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the board. The county's service fee and dispersal amendments were valid, but the insur- ance amendment was not. The board should have considered the constitutional issues. The county could charge fees for services it provided to mass gatherings. Just because state statutes regulated fees for application processing did not mean theY prohibited fees for other services. The county sheriff could order a gathering to disperse. The state statute's court order requirement was not exclusive and applied only to violations of applicable state statutes. The county could not establish a blanket liability insurance requirement. Under state statutes, there had to be a case-by-case assessment. The board should have considered Fence's constitutional claims because several amendments remained intact. The court returned the case to the board to consider those claims. Subdivision -- Property Owner Claims Land Plan Is Not Subdivision Cricones v. Planning £oard of Dracut, 654 N.£.2d 1204 (Massachusetts) 1995 Cricones was trustee of a trust that owned land in Dracut, Mass. Cricones wanted to divide the land into three parcels, all of which would have a common border with two parcels owned by others in Pelham, N.H. Under a Massachusetts statute, anyone seeking to record a land plan in a town governed by the subdivision control law could submit the plan to the town's planning board for an endorsement of approval not required (endorse- ment). Such an endorsement could not be withheld unless the plan showed a "subdivision," which was defined as the division of a tract into two or more lots. The statute defined a "lot" as an area of land in one ownership, with defi- nite boundaries, used or available for use as the site of one or more buildings. Cricones asked the town board of appeals for a variance from a zoning requirement of 175 feet of frontage on a way. The board granted the variance. Cricones then asked the town planning board for an endorsement of his plan, which showed a division of the land into three parcels. Two parcels had no frontage on a way, but had notations that they were "not a building lot" and were to be conveyed to the New Hampshire neighbors. The third parcel showed the proposed location of a house with access from a proposed easement across the adjacent New Hampshire parcel. The planning board denied Cricones' request, citing the lack of sufficient frontage. Cricones appealed. Both parties agreed which facts and documents the court would consider. The court determined Cricones' plan could not be a subdivision because two lots were not buildable. It ordered the board to pro- vide an endorsement. The board appealed, arguing it could not give an endorsement if none of the lots had adequate frontage. The board claimed an endorsement would pro- vide "buildable lot" status to the tot where Cricones proposed to build a house.