From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Board of Ipswich

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jun 30, 1970
358 Mass. 798 (Mass. 1970)

Summary

In Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Ipswich, 358 Mass. 798, we held that the local planning board could rely on and enforce the provisions of a "conditional approval agreement" which limited the duration of the board's approval to the earliest of three dates.

Summary of this case from Costanza Bertolino v. Planning Bd. of North Reading

Opinion

June 30, 1970.

Denis Maguire for the plaintiff.

James T. Ronan for the defendant.


The plaintiff owns land in Ipswich shown on a recorded subdivision plan approved by the board by a "conditional approval agreement" (December 21, 1956) with the former owners. This agreement, recorded in the registry of deeds on January 14, 1957, purported to limit the duration of the approval to the earliest of the following three dates: (a) the recording of deeds releasing restrictions on all lots in the subdivision; (b) recording a statement that the development of these lots has been permanently discontinued; and (c) the expiration (on December 21, 1963) of seven years from the date of the agreement. The agreement was amended three times in various respects. One amendment, to which the present plaintiff was a party, extended the termination date of the original agreement to December 21, 1966. On August 6, 1968, the board voted "[t]o rescind approval of the subdivision . . . on advice of [t]own [c]ounsel." This bill appeals from the board's rescission action and seeks a declaration that it is void. The board's plea in bar relies upon the expiration of the amended conditional approval on December 21, 1966, "long prior to" the rescission vote. From a final decree dismissing the bill, after the plea had been sustained, the plaintiff appeals. The board correctly relies on the terms of the amended 1956 agreement. The owner's acceptance of its terms involved the owner's acquiescence (cf. Kay-Vee Realty Co. Inc. v. Town Clerk of Ludlow, 355 Mass. 165, 168-170) in the board's failure to approve the subdivision plan unconditionally (even if the conditions imposed in the agreement could be said not to have been authorized by the subdivision control law then in effect). See G.L.c. 41, §§ 81M (inserted by St. 1953, c. 674, § 7; since amended by St. 1957, c. 265), 81U (as amended through St. 1955, c. 324; see later amendments through St. 1967, c. 567), 81V and 81W (each as inserted by St. 1953, c. 674, § 7). No appeal appears to have been taken in 1956 or 1957 by the then owner under G.L.c. 41, § 81BB (as amended through St. 1957, c. 199, § 2), from the failure of the board to give unconditional approval (and its participation in the 1956 agreement.) The board is not estopped to insist on the expiration date in the amended 1956 amendment by its unnecessary vote on August 6, 1968, to rescind its approval.

Interlocutory and final decrees affirmed.


Summaries of

Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Board of Ipswich

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jun 30, 1970
358 Mass. 798 (Mass. 1970)

In Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Ipswich, 358 Mass. 798, we held that the local planning board could rely on and enforce the provisions of a "conditional approval agreement" which limited the duration of the board's approval to the earliest of three dates.

Summary of this case from Costanza Bertolino v. Planning Bd. of North Reading

In Campanelli v. Planning Board of Ipswich. 358 Mass. 798 (1970), the Supreme Judicial Court held that in the absence of an appeal, the owner's acceptance of a condition makes the condition enforceable "even if the conditions imposed in the agreement could be said not to have been authorized by the Subdivision Control Law."

Summary of this case from Kilpatrick v. Planning Bd. of Boylston, No
Case details for

Campanelli, Inc. v. Planning Board of Ipswich

Case Details

Full title:CAMPANELLI, INC. vs. PLANNING BOARD OF IPSWICH

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jun 30, 1970

Citations

358 Mass. 798 (Mass. 1970)
261 N.E.2d 65

Citing Cases

Young v. Planning Board of Chilmark

This is not a case in which a developer can properly be held to a particular condition on the ground that he…

SMI Investors, Inc. v. Planning Board

Here, the 1973 plan was approved subject to a condition that all dwellings erected on the lots shown thereon…