Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title VII Chapter 41
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81BB (2026)

Appeal to superior court; counsel; costs; surety or bond; speedy trial

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 81BB. Any person, whether or not previously a party to the proceedings, or any municipal officer or board, aggrieved by a decision of a board of appeals under section eighty-one Y, or by any decision of a planning board concerning a plan of a subdivision of land, or by the failure of such a board to take final action concerning such a plan within the required time, may appeal to the superior court for the county in which said land is situated or to the land court; provided, that such appeal is entered within twenty days after such decision has been recorded in the office of the city or town clerk or within twenty days after the expiration of the required time as aforesaid, as the case may be, and notice of such appeal is given to such city or town clerk so as to be received within such twenty days. The court shall hear all pertinent evidence and determine the facts, and upon the facts so determined, shall annul such decision if found to exceed the authority of such board, or make such other decree as justice and equity may require. The foregoing remedy shall be exclusive, but the parties shall have all rights of appeal and exceptions as in other equity cases.

A city or town may provide any municipal officer or board with legal counsel for appealing, as provided in this section, a decision of a board of appeals or a planning board and for taking such other subsequent action as parties in other equity cases are permitted to take.

Costs shall not be allowed against the planning board or board of appeals unless it shall appear that such board acted with gross negligence or in bad faith.

The court shall require nonmunicipal appellants to post a surety or cash bond in a sum of not less than two thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars to secure the payment of any costs incurred by the appellee as a result of the appeal of a decision approving a subdivision plan if it appears to the court that said appellant or appellants acted in bad faith or with malice in making the appeal to the court.

All issues in any proceeding under this section may be advanced for speedy trial over other civil actions and proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 115 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Krafchuk v. Plan. Bd. of Ipswich, 453 Mass. 517 (Mass. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krafchuk v. Plan. Bd. of Ipswich, 453 Mass. 517 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 8× “Because we conclude that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the board’s approval of the Fagans’ definitive plan, pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81BB 3 ; that the Fagans’ land continued to be entitled to the protection of the process freeze of the zoning bylaw provided by G.”
Fairbairn v. Plan. Bd. of Barnstable, 360 N.E.2d 668 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 41, § 81BB. A judge of that court entertained oral and documentary evidence, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ordered the entry of a judgment sustaining the decision of the planning board.”
Craig v. Plan. Bd., 835 N.E.2d 270 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “In an action brought in Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, Theresa Craig challenged the Haverhill Planning Board’s (board) approval of a subdivision plan submitted by defendant Louis Duquette regarding land on Old Ferry Road in Haverhill.”
Strand v. Plan. Bd. of Sudbury, 358 N.E.2d 842 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs, pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, filed a bill in equity in the Superior Court in which they appealed from a decision of the planning board of Sudbury (board) which approved a proposed subdivision.”
Mac-Rich Realty Constr., Inc. v. Plan. Bd., 341 N.E.2d 916 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). · cites it 3× “2 The developer then appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, from that decision. After examining exhibits, hearing testimony and taking a view, a Superior Court judge made findings of fact (later adopted as a report of material facts) and issued an order…”
Calnan v. Plan. Bd., 826 N.E.2d 258 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “A Land Court judge determined, on summary judgment, that the plaintiffs’ appeal of a decision of the planning board of Lynn (board) approving a subdivision plan (plan) was *385 not timely filed in accordance with G. L. c. 41, § 81BB. 3 The plaintiffs argue that the judge erred…”
Freeman v. Plan. Bd., 646 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. 1995). “See G. L. c. 41, § 81BB (1992 ed.). On October 9, 1986, after a trial, a judge in the Superior Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment (October, 1986, order).”
Stefanick v. Plan. Bd., 657 N.E.2d 475 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “The mechanism for review prescribed in § 81P is that contained in G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, as amended by St. 1982, c.”
Massachusetts Broken Stone Co. v. Plan. Bd., 701 N.E.2d 664 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “Massachusetts Broken Stone Company (Broken Stone) filed an appeal in the Land Court, under G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, from a decision of the planning board of Weston (planning board) disapproving its subdivision plan on grounds that the proposed development might adversely affect…”
Gallitano v. Bd. of Survey Plan. of Waltham, 407 N.E.2d 359 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). · cites it 2× “The Gallitanos *270 appealed under G.L.c. 41, § 81BB, to the Superior Court.”
Gifford v. Plan. Bd., 383 N.E.2d 1123 (Mass. 1978). “On December 6, 1976, the plaintiffs herein, fifteen residents of the town, commenced an action in the Superior Court, joining as defendants Tristram, the planning board, and Nantucket’s building inspector, seeking under G. L. c. 41, § 81BB, to annul the board’s endorsement.”
Arrigo v. Plan. Bd. of Franklin, 429 N.E.2d 355 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “In May, after having been given an extension of time under G.”
Show all 115 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.