Selectmen of Ayer v. Planning Bd. of Ayer
Decision Date | 23 October 1975 |
Citation | 336 N.E.2d 388,3 Mass.App.Ct. 545 |
Parties | SELECTMEN OF AYER v. PLANNING BOARD OF AYER and others (and two companion cases 1 ). |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Harry H. Caviston, Boston, and Thomas E. Lilly, Town Counsel, Ayer, for the Selectmen of Ayer and others.
J. Owen Todd, Boston (James C. Donnelly, Jr., Worcester, with him), for Breakthrough Corp. and another.
Robert U. Holden, Ayer, for the Planning Board of Ayer.
Before HALE, C. J., and GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
These three cases, two of which were consolidated for trial, involve attempts by two corporate developers to subdivide two parcels of land in the town of Ayer and to build multiple-unit residential buildings thereon. The developers filed preliminary subdivision plans on January 20, 1972, and March 3, 1972, which the planning board 'voted to accept' on April 18, 1972. The definitive plans which evolved from the preliminary plans were both filed on June 21, 1972. The planning board originally disapproved the definitive plans on August 16, 1972, for stated reasons but thereafter approved them on December 12, 1972. See G.L. c. 41, § 81U. The selectmen appealed from those approvals to the Superior Court under G.L. c. 41, § 81BB.
During the winter and spring of 1972 the town of Ayer was in the process of adopting an original zoning by-law. That by-law was approved by the Attorney General on April 11, 1972, and was last advertised on May 25, 1972. See G.L. c. 40, § 32. The by-law zoned the two parcels in question for single family residential use and required a building permit as a condition precedent to any construction.
On June 18, 1972, the developers commenced construction of an air-filled, balloon-wall structure apparently intended to be a temporary shelter for employees, equipment, and supplies to be used in the construction of the proposed multiple-dwelling-unit buildings. On June 22, 1972, the zoning enforcing officer under the new zoning by-law posted stop-work orders at the site for the stated reason that no building permit had been issued. There ensued cross actions by the developers and the zoning enforcing officer for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The selectmen's appeal under § 81BB and the cross actions are all here on appeals from judgments and a final decree favorable to the developers and the planning board and adverse to the selectmen and the zoning enforcing officer.
In the cross actions, the Superior Court correctly ruled that the subdivisions were exempt under G.L. c. 40A, § 7A, from the requirements of the zoning bylaw, provided that the approvals of the subdivisions should be sustained in the § 81BB appeal. See Chira v. Board of Appeals of Tisbury, --- Mass.App. ---, --- --- a, 333 N.E.2d 204 (1975). The sole contention now pressed in the cross actions is that the Superior Court erred in ruling that construction of a multiple-dwelling-unit building on each lot was permissible notwithstanding a planning board regulation which read:
The language of this regulation is derived from G.L. c. 41, § 81Q, which reads in part:
The ruling of the Superior Court was clearly correct. Through the type of regulation authorized by § 81Q, a planning board may limit the number of buildings which might be erected on a particular lot, but it may not limit the use of the lot to a single-family dwelling where there is no zoning by-law which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tebo v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury
...v. Board of Appeals of Northborough, 356 Mass. 732, 733, 254 N.E.2d 262 (1969). Compare Selectmen of Ayer v. Planning Bd. of Ayer, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 548, 336 N.E.2d 388 (1975). It was not obliged to disprove every possible harm raised by its adversaries. The judge's comments were not indi......
-
Lakeside Builders v. Planning Bd.
...709 N.E.2d 798 (1999). The burden of proof is on the party challenging a planning board's action. Selectmen of Ayer v. Planning Bd. of Ayer, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 548, 336 N.E.2d 388 (1975). "When reviewing a planning board's disapproval of a definitive subdivision plan, both the Land Court a......
-
Canter v. Planning Bd. of Westborough
... ... Sparks v. Planning Bd. of Westborough, --- Mass.App. ---, --- b, 321 N.E.2d 66 (1974). Selectmen of Ayer v. Planning Bd. of Ayer, --- Mass.App. ---, --- c, 336 N.E.2d 388 (1975). MacRich Realty ... ...
-
Windsor v. Planning Bd. of Wayland
...As in all appeals from planning board approvals, the burden is on the objector to show error, see Selectmen of Ayer v. Planning Bd. of Ayer, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 548, 336 N.E.2d 388 (1975), and in respect to "public-interest" waivers, the burden is nearly insupportable, as we held in Arrigo ......