Nexum Development Corp. v. Planning Board of Framingham

79 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 943 N.E.2d 965 (2011)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nexum Development Corp. v. Planning Board of Framingham

Massachusetts Appeals Court
79 Mass. App. Ct. 117, 943 N.E.2d 965 (2011)

Facts

Nexum Development Corporation (Nexum) wanted to build a residential cluster development on a 32-acre tract of land in Framingham, Massachusetts. The development would have contained a cluster of 24 condominiums, with the remainder of the property reserved for open space managed by a conservation organization. Because the tract did not have municipal water or sewer connections, Nexum planned to construct a common well and a common septic system for the development. Nexum conducted a single soils test for the development’s septic system. Nexum was required to submit two parallel applications for the development. The first application was for a special permit for a cluster development. The second application was for approval of Nexum’s subdivision plan. Nexum was required to meet several requirements in order to build the cluster development. The Framingham bylaws provided that a cluster development could have only as many units as would be permitted if it were a conventional subdivision. The bylaws also required Nexum to establish that the density of the development was within permissible limits by conducting a soils test on each proposed lot to determine whether the lot was buildable. Further, the Framingham Board of Health (BOH) conditioned approval of the special permit for the development on Nexum’s ability to show that (1) the development’s water supply would be sufficient during peak summer months and (2) the water supply would not have a significant effect on the wells of adjoining landowners. The Planning Board of Framingham (the board) denied both applications. Nexum appealed the board’s decisions to the trial court, which found for the board. The trial court reasoned that (1) Nexum had failed to establish the permissible density of the development because it had not conducted a soils test on each proposed lot, and (2) some of the BOH’s water-supply conditions were impossible for Nexum to comply with, and thus its applications could not be approved. Nexum appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mills, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership