Freeman v. Planning Bd. of West Boylston

• Decision Date: 24 February 1995
• Citation: 419 Mass. 548,646 N.E.2d 139
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Eliot R. FREEMAN v. PLANNING BOARD OF WEST BOYLSTON & others. 1

Page 139

646 N.E.2d 139

419 Mass. 548

Eliot R. FREEMAN v. PLANNING BOARD OF WEST BOYLSTON & others. ¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Worcester.

Argued Nov. 9, 1994.

Decided Feb. 24, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Lane & Joyce Frank, Boston, for defendants.

Thomas N. O'Connor, B.J. Krintzman, Boston, with him, for plaintiff.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

The plaintiff, Eliot R. Freeman, brought an action in the Superior Court against the town of West Boylston (town), acting through its planning board (board), and certain members of the planning board individually. ² The plaintiff's action sought damages on the basis of claims that the defendants, in connection with the plaintiff's efforts to obtain approval of a definitive subdivision plan pursuant to G.L. c. 41, § 81K et seq. (1992 ed.), deprived him of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violated the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L. c. 12, § 11I (1992 ed.). A jury in the Superior Court returned special verdicts finding the town liable on both the Federal and State claims, and they assessed identical damages of $375,000 on each claim. The jury also found the defendants Charles Greenough and Kathleen Foreman individually liable on the same claims, and they assessed damages of $50 on each claim against each of them. Judgments were entered, and, subsequently, the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees and costs was allowed in the amount of $120,000 in attorney's fees and $3,333.75 in costs and expert witness fees. ³ The defendants appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We conclude that the plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient, as matter of law, to warrant the jury's verdicts, and, as a consequence, the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been allowed. Consequently, we reverse the judgments, and we order entry of judgments for the defendants on all claims.

1. We begin by examining the evidence in some detail. We do not consider its weight. Rather, the determination focuses on "whether, 'anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff.' " Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass. 341, 343, 280 N.E.2d 179 (1972), quoting Kelly v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 315 Mass. 301, 302, 52 N.E.2d 411 (1943). Viewing the evidence from this perspective, the jury could have found the following facts.

In 1982, the plaintiff purchased a seventy-six acre parcel of land in the town and he obtained the board's approval for a subdivision of twenty-six acres of the property into six residential lots, all of which were sold between 1984 and 1985. On August 26, 1985, he applied for approval of a definitive subdivision plan, pursuant to G.L. c. 41, § 81K et seq., for the remaining fifty acres of the property. The plan proposed a residential subdivision to be called "Lost Oak Road," on land between Prospect and Goodale Streets in the town. The plan showed two new subdivision roads, both ending in culs-de-sac. One of these, called Lost Oak Road, served thirteen lots, and intersected with Prospect Street. The other, called Acorn Path, served two lots and intersected with Goodale Street.

The board referred the plan for review to Michael Rafferty, its consulting civil engineer. In accord with the statutory requirement, see G.L. c. 41, § 81T (1992 ed.), a public hearing was held on September 30, 1985. In connection with the hearing, Rafferty issued a report on the plaintiff's plan, in which he concluded that the plan satisfied the board's regulation regarding sight distances at the intersection of Lost Oak Road and Prospect Street, ⁴ but that the storm water run-off from the developed site would exceed the run-off from the site in its undeveloped state for both twenty-five and one-hundred year storm events. ⁵

At the public hearing, board member Kathleen Foreman, a defendant, voiced concern about the safety of the intersection of Prospect Street and Lost Oak Road (intersection). As a result, the board directed Rafferty to reevaluate the proposed intersection. In a letter dated October 12, 1985, Rafferty informed the board members that, "to provide for safe vehicular operation at this intersection," sight distance should be measured from a point approximately fifty feet back from the westerly edge of Prospect Street. ⁶ At this point, the proposed roadway dipped below the existing grade, "creat[ing] a 'blind spot' within the sight line in both directions." In Rafferty's view, the steep grade of Prospect Street was an additional concern which warranted increasing the sight distance requirement from 275 feet to 325 feet. The plan would require modification, he informed the board, to meet the design criteria outlined in this letter.

On October 24, 1985, the board issued a certificate of planning board action (October, 1985, certificate) disapproving the plaintiff's plan on the grounds that (1) the proposed drainage system was not adequate to guarantee a zero increase in run-off associated with a twenty-five or a one-hundred year storm event ⁷; (2) the sight distances were inadequate at the intersection of Lost Oak Road and Prospect Street to assure safe vehicular traffic ⁸; and (3) approval of the development by the town's board of health had not been obtained. ⁹ In connection with point (2), the board required the plaintiff to obtain "[s]lope and sight distance easements" across land belonging to the Wachusett Country Club. There was evidence that the plaintiff could not obtain these easements, and that, at some point, he so informed the board.

The board's regulations also required that proposed streets conform to the town's master plan as adopted by the board. That plan called for a through street running between Prospect and Goodale Streets in the general area of the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff had requested a waiver of this requirement. In the October, 1985, certificate, the board "[d]efer[red] action on the request to eliminate a through street from Prospect Street to Goodale Street until such time that the safety of the proposed intersection with Prospect Street is resolved to the satisfaction of [the] board."

The plaintiff appealed from the board's decision to the Superior Court. See G.L. c 41, § 81BB (1992 ed.). On October 9, 1986, after a trial, a judge in the Superior Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment (October, 1986, order). Judgment entered in accord with the order on October 17, 1986. Although the judge concluded that the board could not impose conditions based on a one-hundred year storm, she affirmed the board's disapproval of the proposed drainage system for failure to provide adequately for drainage measured by the twenty-five year storm standard. She noted that the applicable regulations only required sight distance of 275 feet in either direction, a requirement obviously satisfied by the definitive plan. Thus, she annulled, as exceeding the board's authority, that portion of the October, 1985, certificate which stated that the plan failed to provide adequate sight distance at the intersection of Lost Oak Road and Prospect Street. The case was remanded to the board for further action consistent with the October, 1986, order.

In January, 1987, after discussions with counsel for the town, the plaintiff's attorney attended a regularly scheduled meeting of the board. At this meeting, the board indicated that it intended to consult with town counsel and Rafferty with respect to the import of the October, 1986, order, and that it was considering whether to appeal from the decision of the Superior Court.

By letter dated February 11, 1987, counsel for the town informed the board that, in his opinion, "the Court ha[d] found that the Board exceeded its authority [with respect to the sight distance issue]," and that, unless the board decided to appeal, "there [was] nothing left for the Board to do on this issue." He nonetheless indicated that "it would seem appropriate ... to have the Board discuss with the Developer the construction details at the intersection of Prospect Street so as to increase the sight distances delineated on the original plan." ¹⁰ Town counsel also opined that the board's responsibility was to receive either new data or amendments (or both) to the proposed drainage system, and suggested that a public hearing would not be required if amendments to the plan were confined to the drainage system. In a subsequent letter, dated April 17, 1987, town counsel informed the board that the October, 1986, order was interlocutory and therefore not immediately appealable, and advised that, in any event, the board would be unlikely to prevail on appeal with respect to the issue of intersection design. He reiterated his opinion that a public hearing would not be required (although one could be held) to consider revisions to the drainage system. As of February, 1987, the defendant Foreman, at least, understood that the October, 1986, order "was limited to the issue of drainage," and that the judge had ruled that the board did not have the authority to impose any additional requirements related to the design or safety of the intersection.

On or about March 21, 1987, Rafferty responded to the board's inquiry with a draft of a revised certificate of planning board action, affirming the board's disapproval of the plaintiff's definitive plan. The cover letter indicated that the draft incorporated changes "in response to the Court's findings." This draft disapproved the definitive plan due to deficiencies in the drainage, based on criteria associated with a twenty-five year storm. In addition, the draft questioned "the safety of the proposed intersection," reiterated the concerns previously...