The judge correctly reversed the action of West Bridgewater's planning board refusing to endorse the plaintiff's "perimeter plan" under G. L. c. 41, § 81P, as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. (The parties refer to the plan as a "perimeter plan"; it does, however, alter boundary lines by consolidating several lots owned by the plaintiff into a single lot.) The plaintiff acknowledges that the plan was submitted to forestall application of a proposed zoning provision prohibiting gasoline service stations in the zoning district by invoking the three-year zoning freeze under G. L. c. 40A, § 6. The plaintiff's motivation, however, was irrelevant to the decision before the board, Long v. Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 232 , 236 (1992); Bisson v. Planning Bd. of Dover, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 504 , 508 (1997); Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc. v. Westford, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 924 , 925 (2004), and the argument that perimeter plans, because they do not contain new lines indicating a division of land, are ineligible for submission and endorsement under § 81P flies in the face of decades of contrary practice. See, e.g., Cape Ann Land Dev. Corp. v. Gloucester, 371 Mass. 19 , 20-23 (1976); Wolk v. Planning Bd. of Stoughton, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (1976); Samson v. San-Land Dev. Corp., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 977 , 978 (1984); Stampfl v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Norwood, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 354 , 355-356 (1992); Reagan v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 956 , 957 & n.2 (1994); Stefanick v. Planning Bd. of Uxbridge, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 418 , 419 (1995).
Maureen A. Lee for the defendant.
Richard C. Dailey (Amy L. Hanson with him) for the plaintiff.