Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/4/4massappct306.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:05:17+00:00

Document:
LOUIS M. CANTER & others vs. PLANNING BOARD OF WESTBOROUGH.
Present: KEVILLE, GRANT, & ARMSTRONG, JJ.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on March 1, 1973.
Eugene L. Tougas for the plaintiffs.
Robert J. Gallagher, Town Counsel, for the Planning Board of Westborough.
ARMSTRONG, J. The plaintiffs appealed under G. L. c. 41, Section 81BB, from a decision of the defendant planning board disapproving their subdivision plan on the grounds that the development proposed therein would have the effect of creating dangerous traffic conditions in several public ways adjacent to the subdivision and that access into certain portions of the subdivision would not be adequate in the event of fire or other emergencies due to the narrowness of, and anticipated congestion on, the adjacent ways. A judge of the Superior Court made findings which substantiated the reasons for disapproval given by the board and ordered the plaintiffs' bill dismissed. The case is before us on the plaintiffs' appeal from a final decree to that effect entered on November 6, 1973.
violations of rules or regulations promulgated by the planning board under the authority and direction of G. L. c. 41, Section 81Q. There is no suggestion in the record that the plan does not comply with any recommendation the board of health may have made under G. L. c. 41, Section 81U, or with any provision of the town's zoning by-law.
Southborough, ante, at 84-85. [Note 1] The regulations of the planning board, to be effective as a basis for disapproval of a plan, must be "comprehensive, reasonably definite, and carefully drafted, so that owners may know in advance what is or may be required of them and what standards and procedures will be applied to them." Castle Estates, Inc. v. Park & Planning Bd. of Medfield, supra, at 334. Sparks v. Planning Bd. of Westborough, supra, at 747-748. Chira v. Planning Bd. of Tisbury, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 433 , 438 (1975).
The rules and regulations of the planning board were admitted in evidence and are before us. We find nothing in them which appears to be directed to those aspects of the plan which were made the grounds for disapproval. The planning board does not contend otherwise. It follows that the board's decision cannot be sustained.
read to suggest that a developer may be required by appropriate planning board regulations to take into account deficiencies in "adjacent public ways," and the concept of "adequate access" may itself involve consideration of the adequacy of connecting ways. Compare United Reis Homes, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Natick, 359 Mass. at 625. See also Rounds v. Board of Water & Sewer Commrs. of Wilmington, 347 Mass. 40 , 46-47 (1964).
We do not deal with the planning board's contention that the subdivision plan submitted by the plaintiffs in fact violated certain of the board's regulations in respects not mentioned in the board's decision. The contention involves questions of fact which have not been dealt with before the board or the trial court and which it is not appropriate for this court to decide. In accordance with the disposition in Pieper v. Planning Bd. of Southborough, 340 Mass. at 164, the following entry should be made: The decree is reversed. A judgment is to be entered (a) stating that the board exceeded its authority in disapproving the plaintiffs' plan on the grounds stated in its decision, (b) annulling the action of the board, and (c) directing the board to hold a public hearing on the plan within thirty days of the date of the judgment and to take final action on the plan within forty-five days from the date of the judgment in a manner consistent with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations, and with this opinion. In the exercise of its discretion the Superior Court may provide in the judgment that it shall retain jurisdiction over the case pending final action by the board.
[Note 1] Certain formulations of the rule suggest that a planning board may also disapprove a plan not shown to violate a planning board regulation if it violates the applicable zoning by-law. See G. L. c. 41, Sections 81M and 81Q; Doliner v. Planning Bd. of Millis, 343 Mass. 1 , 6 (1961); Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass. 141 , 144 (1967). No question of compliance with the zoning by-law is involved in this case.
[Note 2] "The powers of a planning board . . . shall be exercised with due regard for the provision of adequate access to all of the lots in a subdivision by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel; for lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways. . . ." (emphasis supplied).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.