Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 16 proval of Mustang Pass's CUP. The Citizens had further argued that, alternatively, even if the zoning ordinances were validly enacted, they were adopted prematurely without legislative authority. The court rejected both of these arguments. Rezoning —Neighbors say 1975 subdivision conditions apply to proposed further subdivision Subdivision applicant argues conditions expired under statute limiting conditions on real property use to 30 years Citation: Samuelson v. Planning Bd. Of Orleans, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 901, 2014WL2971640(2014) MASSACHUSETTS (07/02/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a state statute (M.G.L.A. c. 184, § 23) limiting conditions on the title or use of real property to a term of 30 years applies to conditions imposed by a planning board. The Background/Facts: In 1975, the Planning Board of the Town of Orleans (the "Board") approved the subdivision of a large parcel of oceanfront land into six lots. A private road known as Tom's Hollow Lane provided ac- cess to the lots. The 1975 approval imposed various express conditions, includ- ing that any further subdivision of the six lots would require both that improve- ments be made to Tom's Hollow Lane and that municipal water service be installed. Thomas R. and Patricia W. Kennedy (the "Kennedys") owned one of the six original lots on Tom's Hollow Lane. They sought to subdivide that lot fur- ther into two lots. In June 2010, the Board approved the Kennedys' proposed subdivision without requiring them to improve the road or to install municipal services in accordance with the teiuis of the 1975 approval. Martha and Paul Samuelson (the "Samuelsons"), who owned a lot that abut- ted that of the Kennedys, appealed the Board's decision. They argued that the 1975 conditions should have been imposed by the Board, and that therefore the Board's approval of the Kennedys' subdivision should be vacated. The land court agreed with the Samuelsons. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Samuelsons and vacated the Board's decision. The Kennedys appealed. On appeal, they argued that the 1975 conditions had expired in 2005 "by operation of G.L. c. 184, § 23, which, generally, limits conditions or restrictions on the title or use of real property to a term of thirty years." That statute, G.L. c. 184 § 23, provides as follows: ©2014 Thomson Reuters