Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anr Division 41 81l topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates ANR divisions after lawyers, precedent raise 'substantial structure' question
Summary
Planning Board members debated whether a detached, historic wood outbuilding without plumbing, electricity or known foundation qualifies as a 'substantial structure' eligible to be divided under Chapter 41, Section 81L, citing the Citgo and Taylor v. Pembroke court cases and requesting town‑counsel guidance.
The Planning Board spent substantial time on the legal and policy question of when a building qualifies as a “substantial structure” under Chapter 41, Section 81L of the Massachusetts General Laws, after an application by John Manera, trustee, to divide a parcel that contains a small hip‑roofed wood outbuilding.
Background: Under Chapter 41, Section 81L, towns that adopted subdivision control may allow division of properties that contain multiple buildings where one of the buildings pre‑dates the Subdivision Control Act (the town’s adoption date is 1955). Several board members and applicants agreed that the outbuilding in question appears to have existed before 1955, but the building’s age alone raised the broader legal question of whether a small structure without plumbing, electricity or known foundation should be treated the same as larger, ‘substantial’ buildings described in precedent court decisions.
Precedent and legal debate: Board members discussed two Massachusetts cases the meeting cited: the Citgo case (1987), where the court allowed division of substantial commercial buildings, and Taylor v. Pembroke, which allowed division where a small, former slaughterhouse‑turned‑garage had electricity and a cesspool (factors the judge cited as supporting substantiality). Planning Board member Hillary Rayport and others said the statute is simple but that courts have considered “substantialness” in later rulings. Several members asked for a town‑counsel opinion about whether the board can lawfully deny an ANR division for a structure of minimal services.
Board direction and motion: Members debated whether to treat this application on the board’s existing practice (the board historically has approved many similar ANR divisions) or to pause to seek formal legal guidance. The board ultimately approved the ANR endorsement for the division as presented (approval vote: motion made by Joe Topham, seconded by Nat Lowell; Hillary Rayport abstained). Several members asked staff to obtain an opinion from Town Counsel and to bring the 81L interpretation to an upcoming town‑meeting bylaw discussion as part of broader possible bylaw changes.
Ending: The board agreed the topic merits a standalone hearing or advisory from Town Counsel to create a consistent test for ‘‘substantial structure’’ claims and to align any new policy with the ANR statute and court precedent.
