SMI Investors (Delaware), Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Tisbury

• Decision Date: 30 July 1984
• Citation: 466 N.E.2d 525,18 Mass.App.Ct. 408
• Parties: SMI INVESTORS (DELAWARE), INC. v. PLANNING BOARD OF TISBURY. (and two companion cases 1 ).
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 525

466 N.E.2d 525

18 Mass.App.Ct. 408

SMI INVESTORS (DELAWARE), INC. v. PLANNING BOARD OF TISBURY. (and two companion cases¹).

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Dukes County.

Argued June 7, 1984.

Decided July 30, 1984.

Kevin F. Moloney and Bernard A. Dwork, Boston, for plaintiff.

Carmen L. Durso, Boston, for defendants.

Christopher S. Pitt and Douglas A. Randall, Quincy, for intervener.

Before GREANEY, C.J., and GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

ARMSTRONG, Justice.

In 1973 the plaintiff's predecessors in title (the Chiras) were granted a special permit by the Tisbury board of appeals to develop their 107-acre tract bordering on Lake Tashmoo as a cluster development. The planning board disapproved the subdivision plan, however, on the ground that the proposed 150-dwelling unit development exceeded the density requirement of a 1973 amendment to the zoning by-law (50,000 square feet per lot). Litigation followed, as a result of which a judge of the Superior Court ruled, in favor of the Chiras, that the applicable density requirement was that in effect before the 1973 amendment (25,000 square feet per lot) and, in favor of various abutters, that the zoning by-law prohibited multi-family structures. The grant of the special permit for cluster development was thus conditioned on a requirement that the dwelling units be detached but was otherwise upheld; and the planning board was ordered to reconsider the subdivision plan. ² In October, 1975, the planning board approved the plan with a notation stating: "All building units will be detached as covenanted"; and a covenant to that effect was executed by the Chiras and the board. With legal obstacles cleared, practical difficulties apparently ensued, and the present plaintiff, holder of a mortgage on the Chiras' tract, came into ownership of the property through foreclosure.

In September, 1980, the plaintiff filed with the board of appeals an application for a special permit to construct multi- family dwelling structures ³ on most of the land (approximately eighty acres) which had been the subject of the Chiras' proposed development. After hearing, the board of appeals voted to deny the permit for a variety of reasons having to do with the impact of the development, none of which needs to be recounted for purposes of the present appeals. In the spring of 1981, the plaintiff filed with the planning board a plan showing the proposed multifamily housing development and sought an endorsement that approval of the plan under the Subdivision Control Law was not required. See G.L. c. 41, § 81P. The planning board rejected the plaintiff's contention, which was (and is) that it had a right to the endorsement because the road system was identical to that shown in the plan approved in 1975 and differed from the earlier plan only in the arrangement of lot lines. See G.L. c. 41, § 810. ⁴

Three actions ensued: first, an appeal under G.L. c. 40A, § 17, from the denial of the permit by the board of appeals; second, an appeal under G.L. c. 41, § 81BB, from the planning board's refusal to give the approval-not-required endorsement; and, third, an action against the board of health for a declaration that a regulation of that board purporting to limit septic systems to two per lot, with a maximum of two dwelling units per septic system, is invalid and unconstitutional. The three municipal defendants moved for, and were granted, summary judgments, and the cases come before us on the plaintiff's appeals.

The Planning Board Case

The provision on which the plaintiff relies (relating to changes in the number, shape or size of lots on an approved plan), like the corresponding restriction applicable to planning board regulations (see § 81Q, eighth sentence ⁵, as appearing in St. 1953, c. 674, § 7), serves to confine the scope of planning boards' discretion to prevent their intruding into the sphere of zoning. The restrictions are not woodenly applied, however, to preclude a planning board from taking cognizance of a lot layout which directly impinges on matters lying within the proper sphere of planning board regulation, such as means of access for vehicles and utilities. See, e.g., Gifford v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 383 N.E.2d 1123 (1978); Hrenchuk v. Planning Bd. of Walpole, 8 Mass.App. 949, 397 N.E.2d 1292 (1979). Compare Gallitano v. Board of Survey & Planning of Waltham, 10 Mass.App. 269, 273-274, 407 N.E.2d 359 (1980).

The endorsements of a planning board (whether an approval of a plan under § 81U or a notation that approval is not required under § 81P) are a prerequisite to recordability of the plan, § 81X, and hence, as a practical matter, to marketability of the lots shown thereon. See Smalley v. Planning Bd. of Harwich, 10 Mass.App. 599, 602-603, 410 N.E.2d 1219 (1980); Arrigo v. Planning Bd. of Franklin, 12 Mass.App. 802, 808, 429 N.E.2d 355 (1981). The cases have supported the concept that, where a planning board knows its endorsement may tend to mislead buyers of lots shown on a plan, it is to exercise its powers in a way that protects persons who will rely on the endorsement. Perry v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 15 Mass.App. 144, 156, 444 N.E.2d 389 (1983). Thus, in Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline, 346 Mass. 278, 283-284, 191 N.E.2d 684 (1963), it was held that a plan showing a division into two lots should have been treated as a subdivision if both lots had been proposed for building because one of the lots lacked the requisite frontage on a public way; but that the planning board had properly given its endorsement that approval was not required because the plan stated on its face that the deficient lot "[did] not conform with the [z]oning [b]y-[l]aw" (346 Mass. at 281, 191 N.E.2d 684). Compare Smalley v. Planning Bd. of Harwich, supra, 10 Mass.App. at 604-605, 410 N.E.2d 1219. With Smalley contrast the Bloom case, supra, and Perry v. Planning Bd. of Nantucket, 15 Mass.App. at 155-157, 444 N.E.2d 389. ⁶

Here, the 1973 plan was approved subject to a condition that all dwellings erected on the lots shown thereon be detached. The imposition of that condition was not appealed, and its propriety is not now before us. Compare Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Ipswich, 358 Mass. 798 261 N.E.2d 65 (1970); Costanza & Bertolino, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of North Reading, 360 Mass. 677, 681, 277 N.E.2d 511 (1971); Marino v. Board of Appeal of Beverly, 2 Mass.App. 859, 311 N.E.2d 580 (1974). The 1981 plan showed the same roads but altered lot lines. The plan also showed that the lots are designed to serve multi-family dwellings. The plaintiff asked the planning board to disregard the proposed use, but this it could not demand as of right. Loring Hills Developers Trust v. Planning Bd. of Salem, 374 Mass. 343, 351, 372 N.E.2d 775 (1978).

The application for the § 81P endorsement was necessarily predicated on the approval of the 1973 plan, which remained contingent on acceptance of the condition. As the 1981 plan does not contemplate compliance with the condition, it is, in effect, a new plan, necessitating independent approval. Richard v. Planning Bd. of Acushnet, 10 Mass.App. 216, 218, 406 N.E.2d 728 (1980). Compare Goldman v. Planning Bd. of Burlington, 347 Mass. 320, 324-325, 197 N.E.2d 789 (1964). We need not consider whether the plaintiff might have been entitled to a § 81P endorsement if each lot shown on the plan had been expressly made subject to the condition on the 1973 plan, in accordance with the holding in Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline, supra. The record in the case before us makes clear that the plaintiff did not seek such a qualified endorsement and affirmatively sought multi-family dwellings as "the only way the investors would be able to recover their money."

It follows that the judge did not err in ruling that the planning board was correct in refusing the § 81P endorsement.

The Board of Appeals Case

The judge did not deal with the several reasons given by the board of appeals for denying the plaintiff's application for a special permit to construct multi-family housing. He appears instead to have ruled, in accordance with the board's motion for summary judgment, that the special permit was properly refused because of the detached-dwelling condition imposed on the 1973 plan approval. The board's contention was based on G.L. c. 41, § 81Y, as appearing in St.1953, c. 674, § 7, which, in relevant part, states:

"In any ... town in which the [S]ubdivision [C]ontrol [L]aw is in effect, the board or officer, if any, having the power and duty to issue permits for the erection of buildings shall not issue any permit for the erection of a building until first satisfied that the lot on which the building is to be erected is not within a subdivision, or that a way furnishing the access to such lot ... is shown on a plan recorded or entitled to be recorded under [§ 81X], and that any condition endorsed thereon limiting the right to erect or maintain buildings on such lot have [sic ] been satisfied, or waived by the planning board ...."

If the plaintiff's application were for building permits, § 81Y would preclude favorable action by either the building inspector or the board. See Ellen M. Gifford Sheltering Home Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Wayland, 349 Mass. 292, 294-295, 208 N.E.2d 207 (1965); Planning Bd. of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass.App. 1009, 429 N.E.2d 81 (1981). Here, the application is for a special permit, not a building permit: that is, it seeks a generalized approval for the construction of multi-family housing on the lots designated, which, if granted, must be followed by applications for the building permits for each approved building, showing detail sufficient to enable the building inspector to determine compliance with applicable codes. ⁷ Before the building permit stage is reached, the plaintiff is in the position of needing approvals of two boards for its development: first, of the board of appeals, which has authority to...