A group of Dartmouth developers have filed suit against the Westport Planning Board in Massachusetts Land Court, contending that they were wrongly denied approval to develop a nine-lot subdivision on a 16-acre parcel of land on Drift Road earlier this summer.

Gregory Nicholas, Kevin DaPonte and Shane Sousa filed suit against the board on Thursday, Aug. 29, claiming that the board’s decision to reject their application exceeds its authority and that members “acted with gross negligence and bad faith” in reviewing their plan, and determining whether two waivers from the town's planning board subdivision regulations were required.

Owned by Barbara Marcotte, the land is located on Drift Road, between Sisson Farm Lane to the north and Charlotte White extension to the south, and runs west and north, up to Route 88.

The plaintiffs first approached the town last year, seeking approval for nine lots and requesting eight waivers from the board’s subdivision regulations.

Over a series of hearings and meetings, the waivers requested were reduced to two: One from regulations that require a 25-foot radius on both sides of an intersection between subdivision streets; and one that stipulates that subdivision streets “shall not be located along perimeter boundaries” except as necessary to access the existing road system, or if other physical conditions require it.

Developers stated that their plan proposed a perimeter roadway that follows the path of an existing access road. With the closest abutter 200 feet away, “plaintiffs offered to install a fence and landscaping to provide additional screening.”

At several points in the process, developers said they were given assurances that the waivers were “of no concern,” and in July the plaintiffs submitted an alternative plan that reduced the number of lots to eight and moved the subdivision roadway to “increase separation” between the road and the subdivision’s perimeter, “thereby eliminating the need for the perimeter road waiver.”

However, at the final hearing on Tuesday, July 23, "several planning board members claimed for the first time that the layout radius waiver would present a safety concern” and would “unduly impact abutters.”

In the suit, the developers allege that board officials dangled waiver approval before them, seemingly in return for a reduction in the number of lot sizes, and refused to consider the alternate plan.

“Members of the board suggested that they would be inclined to grant the requested waivers if the Plaintiffs reduced the density of the subdivision to three or four lots, undermining the purported safety concerns and underscoring the fact that the actual motive for denying the requested waivers was to force the Plaintiffs to substantially reduce the number of lots."

In its suit, the developers ask the court to enter into a judgment reversing the board's decision and ordering the board to endorse the plan, and cover plaintiffs' court costs, expenses and attorney fees and any "such other and further relief as the court deems equitable and just."

They also ask the court to issue a declaration stating that the plan does not require waivers from sections of subdivision rules that govern the radius and perimeter issues.

Board members were notified of the appeal last Tuesday by town planner Michael Burris, but did not speak publicly about the appeal's specifics last week:

"Since it's pending litigation I don't think we should have too much about this in open session today," Burris told board members.