Reeve v. Thompson
MISC 17-000438
| Massachusetts Land Court | May 20, 2021Background
- Trustees (Reeve) own a 76.6-acre Beverly property in an RSD district; a 1981 definitive subdivision plan had divided it into three large lots.
- In 2016–2017 Trustees submitted a new preliminary and then a definitive 2017 Plan reconfiguring the site into two lots and seeking waivers from many subdivision regulations (initially 4, later 19).
- Beverly Planning Board approved the 2017 Plan by a 5–3 vote in July 2017, granting waivers and imposing 12 conditions on approval.
- Trustees sued under G.L. c. 41, § 81BB, challenging nine of the conditions as unlawful delegations or unlawful future reservations of substantive matters central to subdivision approval.
- The court found Condition No. 10 (two-year completion requirement) lawful but held Conditions Nos. 1, 4, 6–9, and 11–12 impermissibly deferred central substantive issues and vacated the Board’s decision, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may approve a definitive subdivision while reserving substantive decisions for later | Trustees: Conditions that reserve access, utilities, roads, drainage, sidewalks, landscaping are unlawful delegations under Tebo/Adams | Board: Granting many waivers justified approving subject to later resolution; board has discretion to condition waivers | Court: Conditions 1,4,6–9,11–12 impermissibly reserved substantive issues and are invalid |
| Whether waivers justified the contested conditions | Trustees: Waivers do not permit deferral of core substantive determinations | Board: Conditions ensure waivers are in the public interest and address plan shortcomings | Court: Board failed to show an evidentiary link; even if linked, conditions unlawfully deferred issues |
| Validity of Condition No. 10 (completion of ways/utilities within two years) | Trustees: not dispositive | Board: mirrors §375-13A(2) authority to require completion deadlines | Court: Condition No. 10 lawful and authorized by the regulations and Subdivision Control Law |
| Appropriate remedy for invalid conditions | Trustees: strike invalid conditions and leave remainder intact | Board: oppose wholesale vacatur | Court: Vacated entire approval and remanded to the Board for reconsideration (Strand principle) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Planning Bd. of Millbury, 404 Mass. 489 (1989) (burden on challenger and limits on deferring substantive decisions)
- Tebo v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 618 (1986) (municipal board may not reserve for later decision an issue of substance)
- Adams v. Planning Bd. of Westwood, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 383 (2005) (conditioning approval on future board approval of substantive design details is improper)
- Krafchuk v. Planning Bd. of Ipswich, 453 Mass. 517 (2009) (waiver standard: public interest and not inconsistent with Subdivision Control Law; courts review inconsistency de novo)
- Strand v. Planning Bd. of Sudbury, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 18 (1977) (court should remand defective plan approvals to planning board rather than impose terms itself)
- Castle Estates, Inc. v. Park & Planning Bd. of Medfield, 344 Mass. 329 (1962) (subdivision regulations must be comprehensive and reasonably definite so owners know requirements)