# Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Planning Board

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · August 16, 2005 · 64 Mass. App. Ct. 902

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6462525

## Case

- **Full name:** Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Planning Board of West Bridgewater
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** August 16, 2005
- **Citations:** 64 Mass. App. Ct. 902; 833 N.E.2d 153; 2005 Mass. App. LEXIS 769
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6462525

## Opinion text

The judge correctly reversed the action of West Bridgewater’s planning board refusing to endorse the plaintiff’s “perimeter plan” under G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP, as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. (The parties refer to the plan as a “perimeter plan”; it does, however, alter boundary lines by consolidating several lots owned by the plaintiff into a single lot.) The plaintiff acknowledges that the plan was submitted to forestall application of a proposed zoning provision prohibiting gasoline service stations in the zoning district by invoking the three-year zoning freeze under G. L. c. 40A, § 6. The plaintiff’s motivation, however, was irrelevant to the decision before the board, Long v. Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 232, 236 (1992); Bisson v. Planning Bd. of Dover, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 504, 508 (1997); Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc. v. Westford, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 924, 925 (2004), and the argument that perimeter plans, because they do not contain new lines indicating a division of land, are ineligible for submission and endorsement under § 8 IP flies in the face of decades of contrary practice. See, e.g., Cape Ann Land Dev. Corp. v. Gloucester, 371 Mass. 19, 20-23 (1976); Wolk v. Planning Bd. of Stoughton, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (1976); *903 Samson v. San-Land Dev. Corp., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 977, 978 (1984); Stampfl v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Norwood, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 354, 355-356 (1992); Reagan v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 956 , 957 & n.2 (1994); Stefanick v. Planning Bd. of Uxbridge, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 419 (1995).
Maureen A. JLee for the defendant.
Richard C. Dailey (Amy L. Hanson with him) for the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6462525. Public record. Not legal advice.