WSP01829 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00232J JUDICIAL REACTION 43 5-322 ~~Ii~ It is not a sound argument that the subdivision will -attract additional dwellers; and thereby increase the volume of traffic and cre~te the need for additional police supervision. These are mere incidents of munioipal growth. The proposed development...will plainly not create ~bnormal traffic hazards inimical to the public welfare. ,,23 , Courts have quite oommonly rejeoted arguments that subdivision approval should be denied because the subdivision would place too heavy a burden upon municipal roads, schools, water supply facilities, or sewer facilities but have supported regulations where there were threats to public health and Z4 safety. In Baker v; Planning Board25 the Supreme Judicial Court of, Massaohusetts held that it was beyond the po\.,er of the planning board to refuse plat approval for an area that acted asa flood control or retention " area for the, town. The area was subject to flooding after thaws or heavy rains. Theboard '-, disapproved the plat on several grounds including the ground that plat approval would negate the purposes of the state enabling act which provided that subdivision regulations were aimed at "securing safety in case of ...flood,...securing adequate provision for water, sewerage, drainage and other re- quirements where necessary in a subdivision. "26 The court did not question the power of the board to attach reasonable conditions to achieve these purposes, but it held that the town could not refuse to approve the plat so that the town could con- tinue to use the owner's land as a water storage area and there- by deprive the owner of all reasonable use. In this instance, ~~~ added cost to the municipality for new drainage facilities was not a sufficient ground to deny plat approval.