Massachusetts Appeals Court Rules Site Plan Review May Be Used to Impose Dimensional Requirements

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. - Massachusetts Environmental, Land Use and Real Estate Alert, 2008

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that local boards may utilize site plan review to impose dimensional requirements on a project that are more restrictive than those contained in a local bylaw.  In Muldoon v. Planning Board of Marblehead, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 372 (2008), the Court held that a minimum setback imposed by the planning board during site plan review of a proposed reconstruction of a residential home was not invalid on its face as a violation of the uniformity requirement of G.L. c. 40A, § 4 even though the planning board imposed a setback greater than what was required under the local zoning bylaw.

The Land Court concluded that the setback condition imposed during site plan review was improper because “such matters were previously resolved in a legislative sense” when the town enacted a zoning bylaw with minimum setbacks.  To then impose a greater setback requirement on this single property owner, the lower court concluded, would be in conflict with the Zoning Act’s mandate that zoning be uniform within a district.  G.L. c. 40A, § 4.

The Appeals Court disagreed, concluding that the inclusion of a minimum dimensional requirement in a bylaw is not dispositive as to whether a board may impose reasonable conditions that result in stricter dimensional requirements in accordance with site plan approval criteria.  Rather, the question is whether the condition imposed is based on criteria contained in the bylaw. 

In this case, the local bylaw provided that site plan review directed the board to consider “(1) whether the architectural and design features of the proposed structure are in harmony with the prevailing character and scale of buildings in the in the neighborhood and town and afford adequate light, air, circulation, and separation between buildings and (2) whether adverse effects on abutting lots, the neighborhood, and the town, including obstruction of views, are minimized.”  The Court concluded that imposing an increased setback requirement could have been a reasonable means of ensuring the access to light, air, and circulation referenced in the bylaw.  The Court remanded the case to the Land Court to determine whether the condition imposed was, in fact, reasonable.

As of September 12, 2008, no request for further appellate review had been docketed.

For further information, contact Marc J. Goldstein at mgoldstein@bdlaw.com or Krista L. Hawley at khawley@bdlaw.com.