Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81M (2026)

Purpose of law

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 81M. The subdivision control law has been enacted for the purpose of protecting the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the cities and towns in which it is, or may hereafter be, put in effect by regulating the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to the several lots therein, but which have not become public ways, and ensuring sanitary conditions in subdivisions and in proper cases parks and open areas. The powers of a planning board and of a board of appeal under the subdivision control law shall be exercised with due regard for the provision of adequate access to all of the lots in a subdivision by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel; for lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways; for reducing danger to life and limb in the operation of motor vehicles; for securing safety in the case of fire, flood, panic and other emergencies; for insuring compliance with the applicable zoning ordinances or by-laws; for securing adequate provision for water, sewerage, drainage, underground utility services, fire, police, and other similar municipal equipment, and street lighting and other requirements where necessary in a subdivision; and for coordinating the ways in a subdivision with each other and with the public ways in the city or town in which it is located and with the ways in neighboring subdivisions. Such powers may also be exercised with due regard for the policy of the commonwealth to encourage the use of solar energy and protect the access to direct sunlight of solar energy systems. It is the intent of the subdivision control law that any subdivision plan filed with the planning board shall receive the approval of such board if said plan conforms to the recommendation of the board of health and to the reasonable rules and regulations of the planning board pertaining to subdivisions of land; provided, however, that such board may, when appropriate, waive, as provided for in section eighty-one R, such portions of the rules and regulations as is deemed advisable.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 93 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: North Landers Corp. v. Plan. Bd. of Falmouth, 416 N.E.2d 934 (Mass. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

North Landers Corp. v. Plan. Bd. of Falmouth, 416 N.E.2d 934 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 7× “The judge concluded that access to the subdivision through a single access road was inadequate to protect lives and property as delineated under G. L. c. 41, § 81M. 3 He further determined that Sam Turner Road is inadequate to carry the expected traffic generated by the…”

Freeman v. Plan. Bd., 646 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. 1995). · cites it 5× “” Authority for requiring substantiation of the intersection’s safety was derived from the stated purposes of the subdivision control law, see G. L. c. 41, § 81M (1992 ed.), which include providing access to subdivision lots “by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel.”

Fairbairn v. Plan. Bd. of Barnstable, 360 N.E.2d 668 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). · cites it 4× “A planning board may not approve a subdivision plan which does not comply with the recommendation of the board of health; the planning board’s options in such a *174 case are limited to those of disapproving the plan or modifying it in such fashion as to bring it into conformity…”

Arrigo v. Plan. Bd. of Franklin, 429 N.E.2d 355 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “41, § 81Q (see G. L. c. 41, § 81M; Canter v. Planning Bd.”

Canter v. Plan. Bd. of Westborough, 347 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). · cites it 2× “The final sentence of G. L. c. 41, § 81M, inserted by St. 1957, c.”

Mac-Rich Realty Constr., Inc. v. Plan. Bd., 341 N.E.2d 916 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). · cites it 2× “5 *84 In reaching its decision the planning board must look to the factors set forth in the purpose section of the Subdivision Control Law, G. L. c. 41, § 81M.* **** 6 But the board may consider those factors only as they relate to matters within the proposed subdivision.”

Beale v. Plan. Bd., 423 Mass. 690 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 2× “As stated in G. L. c. 41, § 81M, the purposes of the subdivision control law include “regulating the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to the several lots therein, but which have not become public ways, and ensuring sanitary conditions in…”

Casagrande v. Town Clerk of Harvard, 387 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 3× “In G.L.c. 41, § 81M, planning boards must administer that law with due regard for adequate access to all lots "by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel; for lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways; for reducing danger to life and limb in the…”

Palitz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Tisbury, 26 N.E.3d 175 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “See also G. L. c. 41, § 81M (legislative purpose statement).”

All. to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 457 Mass. 663 (Mass. 2010). “432, 436-438 (1981) (language of subdivision control statute, G. L. c. 41, § 81M, was clear in authorizing planning board to evaluate adequacy of public way outside proposed subdivision in ruling on subdivision plan); Dupont v.”

Dunn v. Attorney Gen., 54 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2016). “690, 695-696 (1996) (citing statement of purpose in G. L. c. 41, § 81M). The people’s power to enact laws through popular initiatives is “coextensive with the Legislature’s law-making power under Part II, c.”

Batchelder v. Plan. Bd. of Yarmouth, 575 N.E.2d 366 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 41, § 81M. One of the ways in which this objective is achieved by local planning boards is to secure a covenant from the “owner of record” which provides for the installation of adequate municipal services.”

Show all 93 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.