Corcoran v. Planning Bd. Of Sudbury

In Corcoran v. Planning Bd. Of Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248, 547 N.E.2d 911 (1989), after several Massachusetts Appeals Court (the "Appeal Court") cases on the topic of illusory access under 81P, the Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") elaborated on illusory access as it relates to internal wetlands: "The existence of interior wetlands, that do not render access illusory, is unlike the presence of distinct physical impediments to threshold access or extreme lot configurations that do." Id. at 251. The SJC compared such ruling with Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, stating that "Gifford was not intended to broaden significantly the powers of planning boards. The guiding principle of Gifford and its progeny is that planning boards are authorized to withhold 'ANR' endorsements in those unusual situations where the 'access implied by the frontage is . . . illusory in fact.'" Id. at 251. The SJC noted that "the presence of wetlands on the lots does not raise a question of access from the public way, but rather the extent to which interior wetlands can be used in connection with structures to be built on the lots." Corcoran, 406 Mass. at 251. The SJC then affirmed the trial court's reversal of a local planning board's denial of ANR endorsement, holding that the existence of interior wetlands, that do not render access illusory, is unlike the presence of distinct physical impediments to threshold access or extreme lot configurations that do. That the use of the wetlands is, or must be, subject to the approval of other public agencies (G. L. c. 131, 40) does not broaden the scope of the board's powers. Id. at 251-52.