Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81O (2026)

Regulation of new subdivisions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 81O. No person shall make a subdivision of any land in any city or town in which the subdivision control law is in effect unless he has first submitted to the planning board of such city or town for its approval a plan of such proposed subdivision, showing the lots into which such land is to be divided and the ways already existing or which are to be provided by him for furnishing access to such lots, and the planning board has approved such plan in the manner hereinafter provided. After the approval of a plan the location and width of ways shown thereon shall not be changed unless the plan is amended accordingly as provided in section eighty-one W; but the number, shape and size of the lots shown on a plan so approved may, from time to time, be changed without action by the board, provided every lot so changed still has frontage on a public way or way shown on a plan approved in accordance with the subdivision control law of at least such distance, if any, as is then required by ordinance or by-law of said city or town for erection of a building on such lot, and if no distance is so required, has such frontage of at least twenty feet.

A plan shall be submitted under this section when delivered at a meeting of the board or when sent by registered mail to the planning board. If so mailed, the date of receipt shall be the date of submission of the plan.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Gordon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lee, 494 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gordon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lee, 494 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “It does not appear from the record whether a plan reflecting the subdivision was submitted to the planning board (as was required by G.L.c. 41, § 81O) or was approved by that board.”

RCA Dev., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 121 N.E.3d 1117 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 4× “Therefore, the division of the lot did not require the approval of the planning board under G. L. c. 41, § 81O. In addition, the judge determined that although the owner of lot 46 could have sought the planning board's endorsement of the division through an "approval not…”

Ninety Six, LLC v. Wareham Fire Dist., 94 N.E.3d 397 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “unless he has first submitted to the planning board of such city or town for its approval a plan of such proposed subdivision, showing the lots into which such land is to be divided and the ways already existing or which are to be provided by him for furnishing access to such…”

Cullen v. Plan. Bd., 355 N.E.2d 490 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976). · cites it 2× “It is the plaintiffs’ contention that the developer did not properly submit the subdivision application in either of the ways provided for in G. L. c. 41, § 81O, as it did not deliver it at a meeting of the planning board or send it by registered mail to the planning board, care…”

Paul Griffith & Others v. Bellingham Zoning Bd. of Appeals & Others. (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 4× “40A § 17, the plaintiffs argue the judge erred in dismissing with prejudice counts I and II of their complaint, which challenged the permit under G. L. c. 41, § 81O, § 81W, and G. L. c. 240, § 14A.”

Ninety Six, LLC v. Wareham Fire Dist. (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “" G. L. c. 41, § 81O, inserted by St. 1953, c.”

Samuel Bourne v. Roy E. Gardner & Another. (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). “Nothing we have said precludes the plaintiff from submitting a plan to the planning board for its approval, see 5 G. L. c. 41, § 81O, or from seeking any available relief from other municipal boards.”

Meadow Wood LLC v. City of Brockton. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “See also G. L. c. 41, § 81O. The judgment is reversed and a new judgment shall enter affirming the decision of the board.”

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.