Bucci v. Planning Board

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Bucci v. Planning Board

341 N.E.2d 294, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 775

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedFebruary 10, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 341 N.E.2d 294 (Bucci v. Planning Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bucci v. Planning Board, 341 N.E.2d 294, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 775 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

After the plaintiffs’ “Appeal under the provisions of G. L. c. 41, § 81BB” praying “[t]hat the approval of the Planning Board in granting the subdivision to Respondent Batter be annulled,” the defendant planning board, with the consent of John F. Batter, Jr., and Rosemary A. Batter, also defendants, and their successors in title,¹ rescinded its approval of that subdivision plan. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ case is (as the defendant-appellees argue) moot. The plaintiffs’ attack on the decision of the planning board rescinding its approval fails for the reason (among others) that the rescission must stand unless and until the decision to rescind is itself annulled on appeal to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 41, § 81BB. See Marino v. Board of Appeal of Beverly, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 859, 860 (1974). See also Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 710 (1971); Bigham v. Planning Bd. of No. Reading, 362 Mass. 860 (1972). So far as appears no such appeal from the planning board’s decision rescinding its approval was taken. (We express no opinion as to the merits of such an appeal.) Whether the plaintiffs could have litigated the various grievances adumbrated in their bill and brief in connection with the conditions of the original subdivision is immaterial, since the original subdivision plan is no longer viable. Accordingly, the judgment is modified to provide that the bill be dismissed because the case has become moot and not on the merits. See Berger v. Wellesley, 334 Mass. 193, 195 (1956); Bettigole v. City Council of Springfield, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 816 (1973).

So ordered.

Costs of this appeal to be taxed against the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

After the plaintiffs’ “Appeal under the provisions of G. L. c. 41, § 81BB” praying “[t]hat the approval of the Planning Board in granting the subdivision to Respondent Batter be annulled,” the defendant planning board, with the consent of John F. Batter, Jr., and Rosemary A. Batter, also defendants, and their successors in title,¹ rescinded its approval of that subdivision plan. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ case is (as the defendant-appellees argue) moot. The plaintiffs’ attack on the decision of the planning board rescinding its approval fails for the reason (among others) that the rescission must stand unless and until the decision to rescind is itself annulled on appeal to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 41, § 81BB. See Marino v. Board of Appeal of Beverly, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 859, 860 (1974). See also Stoner v. Planning Bd. of Agawam, 358 Mass. 709, 710 (1971); Bigham v. Planning Bd. of No. Reading, 362 Mass. 860 (1972). So far as appears no such appeal from the planning board’s decision rescinding its approval was taken. (We express no opinion as to the merits of such an appeal.) Whether the plaintiffs could have litigated the various grievances adumbrated in their bill and brief in connection with the conditions of the original subdivision is immaterial, since the original subdivision plan is no longer viable. Accordingly, the judgment is modified to provide that the bill be dismissed because the case has become moot and not on the merits. See Berger v. Wellesley, 334 Mass. 193, 195 (1956); Bettigole v. City Council of Springfield, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 816 (1973).

So ordered.

Costs of this appeal to be taxed against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 N.E.2d 294, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bucci-v-planning-board-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack