Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam
| Decision Date | 18 February 1971 |
| Citation | 266 N.E.2d 891,358 Mass. 709 |
| Parties | Melvin STONER et al. v. PLANNING BOARD OF AGAWAM et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John J. Teahan, Agawam, and Frederick S. Pillsbury, Springfield, for defendants.
James H. Tourtelotte, Springfield, for plaintiffs.
Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON, and QUIRICO, JJ.
This case is an appeal to the Superior Court under G.L. c. 41, § 81BB, from the decision of the planning board of Agawam (the board) to rescind its approval of a recorded subdivision plan for the property of the plaintiffs Mr. Stoner and Guastamachio. The case was referred to a master who found subsidiary facts and made general findings based thereon. The defendants excepted to the general findings made by the master, who found, inter alia, that the subdivision approval by the board was valid and the board's subsequent rescission ineffective. There was no exception to the subsidiary findings upon which the general findings were based. The defendants appeal from an interlocutory decree confirming the master's report and from a final decree upholding the validity of the subdivision plan and annulling the board's rescission.
The undisputed facts of the case are summarized: On April 7, 1967, the plaintiffs, Mr. Stoner and Gustamachio, acquired title to the land in question from Eagle Realty, Inc. (Eagle) in an arm's-length transaction consummated after lengthy negotiation as to the price to be paid. Prior to that time, when Eagle owned the property, the board rejected a subdivision plan submitted by Eagle; but later, on July 8, 1966, the board approved the subdivision plan after Eagle obtained permission from a utility company for a forty foot wide right of way abutting the subdivision. A revised plan had been submitted to the board on May 13, 1966. On July 12, 1966, the board of health's approval was indorsed on the plan. The board did not request of Eagle a bond or covenant to secure the installation of streets and municipal services in the subdivision as it was the custom of the board to require such a bond or covenant only when the landowner was going to rpoceed with actual construction of buildings in the subdivision. On July 18, 1966, the board wrote to the town clerk advising that the plan had been approved on July 8, 1966. The 'town's subdivision rules' required a fifty foot wide street, which requirement the board was authorized to waive. The minutes of the board are incomplete with pages missing, but members of the board at the time the approval of the plan was under consideration testified that they had waived the fifty foot width requirement and had accepted the forty foot right of way shown on the plan. At the board meeting of May 12, 1966, it was moved and seconded to waive the fifty foot requirement but action on the motion was deferred to give the town's engineering department and health department agent a chance to review the plan. A meeting with the engineering department was held and although no formal action was taken in the minutes on the motion, the plan showing the forty foot right of way was approved by the board on July 8, 1966, and the approval of the health department was affixed to it on July 12, 1966.
None of the plaintiffs knew the owners of Eagle up to the time the plan was approved on July 8, 1966. The plaintiff Guastamachio was made aware of the property by one Moreno who had an option to buy it. In October, 1966, Guastamachio agreed to pay $24,000 to Eagle for the property and to pay Moreno $4,000 for an assignment of his option. Guastamachio then told his associate, the plaintiff Mr. Stoner, who is a lawyer, about the transaction and Mr. Stoner was to see that the conveyance was completed. In December, 1966, Mr. Stoner retained a law firm specializing in conveyancing and title examinations to examine the title and complete the conveyance. Mr. William Young examined the title and had to obtain various documents to clear the title, which took him until March of 1967. Mr. Young found no subdivision plan on record and advised his clients that to be effective, a subdivision plan must be approved within six months of the date it was to be recorded. Mr. Stoner advised Mr. Young that the sale could not be consummated without an approved subdivision plan. Since more than six months had elapsed from the date of the plan's approval, Mr. Young could not record the plan. Mr. Young advised Mr. Stoner that the plan would have to be updated by the board before it would be in proper form for recording. Mr. Young took the plan to the clerk of the board and asked her if she would have it restamped. The clerk stated that she would put it on the agenda for the next board meeting on January 13, 1967. After January 13, 1967, the clerk told Mr. Young that the plan had been restamped and could be recorded. Mr. Young recorded the plan on April 3, 1967. The plan which was recorded is identical to the plan which the board approved on July 8, 1966, with the exceptions that there is no stamp of approval on the recorded plan by the board of health, and the stamp of approval on the recorded plan is dated January 13, 1967, and is signed by four members of the board rather than three. Like the earlier plan, this plan shows a forty foot right of way over adjacent property.
On April 11, 1967, the purchase money of $24,000 was paid to Eagle after the plan and deed were recorded. Part of the money was raised by a loan of $10,000 to the plaintiffs Mr. Stoner and Guastamachio from the plaintiff Gelles, who was given a second mortgage on the property which was executed March 27, 1967. Gelles was not involved in any application for approval of the plan or for its updating. On April 25, 1968, as a result of action by third persons, the board held a public hearing on a petition to rescind its approval of the plan. One of the items discussed was the lack of a bond or covenant for 'municipal betterments.' The plaintiffs Mr. Stoner and Guastamachio attended the hearing and filed a covenant at that time with the board. On May 27, 1968, the board voted to rescind its approval of the plan. None of the plaintiffs assented to the rescission, which worked a hardship on Mr. Stoner and Guastamachio because they were unable to develop the subdivision which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. DeMatteo Const. Co. v. Board of Appeals of Hingham
...at 413. Kay-Vee Realty Co. Inc. v. Town Clerk of Ludlow, 355 Mass. 165, 170, 243 N.E.2d 813 (1969). See Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 715, 266 N.E.2d 891 (1971). See also Costanza & Bertolino, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of No. Reading, 360 Mass. 677, 680--681, 277 N.E.2d 511 3.......
-
Krafchuk v. Planning Bd. of Ipswich
...submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant." See Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 713-714, 266 N.E.2d 891 (1971). If a plan has been constructively approved pursuant to G.L. c. 41, § 81U, the constructive approval becomes f......
-
Kitras v. Zoning Adm'R of Aquinnah
...clerk a certificate of such action on the definitive plan within ninety days after such submission." See Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 713-714, 266 N.E.2d 891 (1971) (failure of planning board to comply with requirements of G.L. c. 41, § 81U, results in "constructive" app......
-
Another v. Planning Bd. Of Stockbridge (and Three Companion Cases )
...plan results. See Kay-Vee Realty Co. v. Town Clerk of Ludlow, 355 Mass. 165, 168, 243 N.E.2d 813 (1969); Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 713-714, 266 N.E.2d 891 (1971). Once a subdivision plan has become constructively approved under § 81U, the approval becomes final either......