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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81W (2026)

Modification, amendment or rescission of approval of plan; conditions

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

Section 81W. A planning board, on its own motion or on the petition of any person interested, shall have power to modify, amend or rescind its approval of a plan of a subdivision, or to require a change in a plan as a condition of its retaining the status of an approved plan. All of the provisions of the subdivision control law relating to the submission and approval of a plan of a subdivision shall, so far as apt, be applicable to the approval of the modification, amendment or rescission of such approval and to a plan which has been changed under this section.

No modification, amendment or rescission of the approval of a plan of a subdivision or changes in such plan shall affect the lots in such subdivision which have been sold or mortgaged in good faith and for a valuable consideration subsequent to the approval of the plan, or any rights appurtenant thereto, without the consent of the owner of such lots, and of the holder of the mortgage or mortgages, if any, thereon; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit such modification, amendment or rescission when there has been a sale to a single grantee of either the entire parcel of land shown on the subdivision plan or of all the lots not previously released by the planning board.

So far as unregistered land is affected, no modification, amendment or rescission of the approval of a plan nor change in a plan under this section shall take effect until (1) the plan as originally approved, or a copy thereof, and a certified copy of the vote of the planning board making such modification, amendment, rescission or change, and any additional plan referred to in such vote, have been recorded, (2) an endorsement has been made on the plan originally approved as recorded referring to such vote and where it is recorded, and (3) such vote is indexed in the grantor index under the names of the owners of record of the land affected. So far as registered land is affected, no modification, amendment or rescission of the approval of a plan nor change in a plan under this section shall take effect, until such modification, amendment or change has been verified by the land court pursuant to chapter one hundred and eighty-five, and in case of rescission, or modification, amendment or change not so verified, until ordered by the court pursuant to section one hundred and fourteen of said chapter one hundred and eighty-five.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · 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 4× “The hearing was continued to May, 2003, when the board voted to rescind the constructive approval pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81W, 8 and, without hearing any new substantive evidence, to readopt its January, 2003, decision disapproving the definitive plan and granting waivers.”
Blue View Constr., Inc. v. Town of Franklin, 874 N.E.2d 425 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 11× “40B with respect to a proposed development by an abutter violated G. L. c. 41, § 81W, and constituted a constructive taking of Blue View’s property, thereby entitling Blue View to damages; and (2) a claim against the defendant, the abutter Marinella Development, LLC (Marinella),…”
Murphy v. Plan. Bd., 363 N.E.2d 536 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). · cites it 6× “The plaintiff argues, among other things, (1) that G. L. c. 41, § 81W, as appearing in St. 1953, c.”
Patelle v. Plan. Bd. of Woburn, 480 N.E.2d 35 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 4× “Following the sale in 1976 and 1977 of lots in a Woburn subdivision known as Blueberry Hill I, the planning board of Woburn, acting under G. L. c. 41, § 81W, approved modifications to the recorded subdivision plan proposed by the developer.”
Matthews v. Plan. Bd., 892 N.E.2d 797 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “The complaint further asked for a finding that the Stonewood subdivision plan did not constitute a modification of the Wood Duck subdivision plan, or to the extent that it did constitute a modification, as that term is used in G. L. c. 41, § 81W, that the modification did not…”
Windsor v. Plan. Bd. of Wayland, 531 N.E.2d 272 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “Fortunately, there is a well-worn, although a rather circuitous way out of the blunder — a proceeding by the planning board pursuant to G.L.c. 41, § 81W, as amended through St. 1977, c.”
Young v. Plan. Bd., 402 Mass. 841 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 41, §§ 81W and 81T (1986 ed.). The Youngs sought judicial review of the planning board’s action.”
Adams v. Plan. Bd., 833 N.E.2d 637 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). “The decision *385 granted certain waivers and imposed several conditions, the most significant of which required that the roadway would have a paved width of twenty feet; that there could be no further subdivision of the lot containing 676,690 feet, with any further…”
Kitras v. Zoning Adm'r, 453 Mass. 245 (Mass. 2009). “” On September 27, 2002, the planning board acted pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81W, to “rescind whatever constructive approvals had occurred.”
Lee v. Bd. of Appeals of Harwich, 414 N.E.2d 619 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “The purpose of this conveyancing maneuver is to retain for all lots in a subdivision certain immunities against future zoning changes and mandated changes in the subdivision plan (see, for example, G. L. c. 41, § 81W) which the zoning act reserves for the good faith buyer of a…”
Krafchuk v. Plan. Bd. of Ipswich, 874 N.E.2d 675 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “9 We think that in these circumstances, the Fagans cannot claim constructive approval based on the failure to file a notice of extension of time with the town clerk, where they acquiesced to the board’s extended deliberations, and they took no timely action to secure the…”
Hamilton v. Plan. Bd. of Beverly, 620 N.E.2d 44 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “Under G. L. c. 41, § 81W, a person having a cognizable interest may petition the planning board for modification of an approved subdivision plan.”
Show all 35 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.