Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81R (2026)

Waiver of strict compliance with rules and regulations

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 81R. A planning board may in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations, and with the frontage or access requirements specified in said law, and may, where the ways are not otherwise deemed adequate, approve a plan on conditions limiting the lots upon which buildings may be erected and the number of buildings that may be erected on particular lots and the length of time for which particular buildings may be maintained without further consent by the planning board to the access provided. The planning board shall endorse such conditions on the plan to which they relate, or set them forth in a separate instrument attached thereto to which reference is made on such plan and which shall for the purpose of the subdivision control law be deemed to be a part of the plan.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · 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 4× “, 4 at the time when, following the board’s rescission of constructive approval of the plan, they submitted an amended plan; that the board did not exceed its authority in granting waivers from its rules and regulations pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81R 5 ; and that the board’s…”

Arrigo v. Plan. Bd. of Franklin, 429 N.E.2d 355 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Therefore, the chairman testified, they decided to “waive” the 200 foot frontage requirement in accordance with the authority given them by G. L. c. 41, § 81R. Section 81R, inserted by St.”

Wheatley v. Plan. Bd. of Hingham, 388 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). · cites it 3× “At its May 14,1973, meeting, the board agreed to waive, pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81R, 4 any procedural requirements which the 1967 plan did not *438 meet; 5 and on May 21 Hanian resubmitted two prints of the 1967 plan (each of which contained twenty-one sheets) together with a…”

Gordon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lee, 494 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “The planning board is given ample authority by G.L.c. 41, § 81R, as amended by St. 1955, c.”

Palitz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Tisbury, 26 N.E.3d 175 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “802, 807-808 (1981), the Appeals Court held that although a planning board may waive the specific requirements of § 81L’s frontage-based exemption, see G. L. c. 41, § 81R, that waiver is only valid to the extent that zoning compliance is required to qualify for an ANR…”

Adams v. Plan. Bd., 833 N.E.2d 637 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). “Furthermore, G. L. c. 41, § 81R, specifically authorizes the board to limit the lots on which buildings may be erected and to place such restrictions on the definitive plan.”

Wine v. Plan. Bd., 908 N.E.2d 806 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “G. L. c. 41, § 81R. The conditions imposed by the board required that dwellings on Lot 2A and the Jutras lot remain single-family dwellings and front on High Street, and that any further subdivision of the land comply with the city’s subdivision rules and regulations.”

Beale v. Plan. Bd., 423 Mass. 690 (Mass. 1996). “802, 807-808 (1981) (waiver of § 81L frontage requirements by a planning board under G. L. c. 41, § 81R, does not eliminate requirement for a variance from the board of appeals); Smalley v.”

Musto v. Plan. Bd., 768 N.E.2d 588 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “The planning board also argues that, since the proposed dead-end road length did not conform to the town’s rules and regulations, and the planning board was not obliged to waive strict compliance with this rule, it acted properly in disapproving the definitive subdivision plan.”

Advanced Dev. Concepts, Inc. v. Town of Blackstone, 597 N.E.2d 1372 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 2× “41, § 8IBB) or formally seek to modify (see G. L. c. 41, §§ 81R & 81W) the conditions of approval.”

Silva v. Plan. Bd., 611 N.E.2d 257 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 41, § 81R, as appearing in St. 1953, c.”

Miles-Matthias v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 4 N.E.3d 309 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “On March 11, 2008, the Seekonk planning board endorsed Dias’s plan to divide his land off Ledge Road into six lots as an approval-not-required plan (ANR plan) pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81R Although lots 1-3 on Dias’s ANR plan had legal frontage on Arcade Avenue, the presence of…”

Show all 29 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.