Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham
| Decision Date | 12 July 1967 |
| Citation | 353 Mass. 141,228 N.E.2d 831 |
| Parties | Fannie A. BAKER v. PLANNING BOARD OF FRAMINGHAM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Avram G. Hammer, Boston (Joseph H. Lewis, Town Counsel, Framingham, with him), for defendant.
John P. Garrahan, Framingham (Carl A. Sheridan, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL & REARDON, JJ.
In the Superior Court the judge entered a decree that the planning board of Framingham (the board) had exceeded its authority in disapproving the definitive plan for the subdivision of approximately eleven acres of land owned by the plaintiff (Baker 1). The decree annulled the decision of the board and directed that it promptly take further proceedings under the subdivision control law consistent with the applicable statutes and the decree. See Daley Constr. Co. Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Randolph, 340 Mass. 149, 156, 163 N.E.2d 27; Pieper v. Planning Bd. of Southborough, 340 Mass. 157, 164, 163 N.E.2d 14; Doliner v. Planning Bd. of Millis, 343 Mass. 1, 9, 175 N.E.2d 919. The board's appeal brings the case to us.
Baker's bill in equity was brought under G.L. c. 41, § 81BB. After the parties were at issue on the pleadings, the case was referred to a master whose report was confirmed by interlocutory decree, from which no appeal was taken. No report of the evidence was authorized; no summary of the evidence was requested. The only questions presented, therefore, are (1) whether the findings of the master are contradictory, mutually inconsistent or plainly wrong, and (2) whether the decree is within in the scope of the pleadings and supported by the facts found. Lukas v. Leventhal, 344 Mass. 762, 183 N.E.2d 879; Madigan v. McCann, 346 Mass. 62, 64, 190 N.E.2d 215, and cases cited.
We summarize the admissions made in the pleadings and the facts found by the master which, in light of the standard of review and the arguments made, are pertinent to the issues to be resolved. In December, 1934, Baker and her husband granted to the town by recorded deed an easement (ten feet wide), through land owned by them, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a pipe drain or excavating and maintaining a ditch of 'sufficient depth to permit without interruption the flow of surface water and drainage' through the Baker land. The town excavated a ditch which received water accumlating on Brook Street and channeled the water across Baker's land to land of another where it entered a fifteen inch drain controlled by the town, and thence was carried to the Sudbury River. Because of the development of land in the area since the easement was granted, including the construction of a church with a large paved parking lot, the volume of water now accumulating on Brook Street during heavy rainstorms has greatly increased. The ditch cannot carry off the increased volume of water to the drain pipe on the adjoining land, and the drain pipe, in turn, cannot carry away the water which is collected in and over the ditch. The result is that the Baker land becomes flooded for a considerable area on both sides of the Ditch, and the land consequently serves as a flood control or 'retention area' for the town, to the extent of 16,200 cubic feet of water, during and after heavy rains and thaws.
Baker's definitive plan was submitted on February 26, 1965. A preliminary plan had been submitted earlier. The board of health approved the definitive plan. G.L. c. 41, §§ 81M, 81U. The planning board did not modify the definitive plan but, by majority vote, disapproved it and stated its reasons. G.L. c. 41, § 81U. In summary, the board's reason for disapproval relate to the sewerage and water drainage systems proposed in the definitive plan. The sewerage system would require the construction and maintenance of a lift or pumping station to tie in with the town's sewerage system, whereas the board favored a gravity system which would not require a lift station. The proposed water drainage system, although adequate for the subdivision, would deprive the town of the retention area on Baker's land and, in consequence, would overtax the downstream...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Framingham Clinic, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham
...discretion." McCaffrey v. Board of Appeals of Ipswich, 4 Mass.App. 109, 112, 343 N.E.2d 154 (1976). See Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141, 145, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967); Daley Constr. Co. v. Planning Bd. of Randolph, 340 Mass. 149, 155, 163 N.E.2d 27 (1959). If the town of Fra......
-
Canter v. Planning Bd. of Westborough
...Estates, Inc. v. Park & Planning Bd. of Medfield, 344 Mass. 329, 333--334, 182 N.E.2d 540 (1962). Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141, 144--145, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967). United Reis Homes, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Natick, 359 Mass. 621, 622--623, 270 N.E.2d 402 (1971). Sparks v.......
-
Others v. Planning Bd. Of Truro
...reason” to do so. Young v. Planning Bd. of Chilmark, 402 Mass. 841, 846, 525 N.E.2d 654 (1988), citing Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141, 144-145, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967). In assessing the propriety of planning board action, we confine our review to the reasons offered by the......
-
Beale v. Planning Bd. of Rockland
...the zoning by-law, but also with the [subdivision] rules and regulations...." [emphasis added] ) 8; Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141, 144-145, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967) (planning board should consider the language of § 81M concerning zoning compliance and approve a plan that c......