If the plaintiff's application were for building permits, § 81Y would preclude favorable action by either the building inspector or the board. See Ellen M. Gifford Sheltering Home Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Wayland, 349 Mass. 292, 294-295 (1965); Planning Bd. of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 1009 (1981). Here, the application is for a special permit, not a building permit: that is, it seeks a generalized approval for the construction of multi-family housing on the lots designated, which, if granted, must be followed by applications for the building permits for each approved building, showing detail sufficient to enable the building inspector to determine compliance with applicable codes.

See Bobrowski, supra § 16.1.1. Section 81Y most frequently comes into play when persons fail to comply with conditions imposed on a subdivision by a planning board. See Planning Bd. of Easton v. Koenig, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 1009 (1981); SMI Investors (Delaware), Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Tisbury, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 408, 413 (1984); Bobrowski, supra § 16.2. In the absence of a statutorily prescribed right of judicial review of a § 81P endorsement on a plan, the review, whether framed as a declaratory judgment action or one seeking injunctive relief, is in the nature of certiorari. What the plaintiffs seek is correction of an error "in proceedings which are not according to the course of the common law" and are not "otherwise reviewable by motion or by appeal."

The entrance of the Board of Zoning Appeals into this area of control would not only rupture the statutory scheme but also interrupt the enforcement of the policy designed by the Planning Board" (Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 A.D.2d 58, 62, affd 28 N.Y.2d 608, supra). This separation of powers between the two Boards has also been recognized in other jurisdictions which have considered this issue (see, e.g., Planning Bd. v Koenig, 12 Mass. App. 1009, 429 N.E.2d 81; Noonan v Zoning Bd. of Review, 90 R.I. 466, 159 A.2d 606; Seligman v Belknap, 288 Ky. 133, 155 S.W.2d 735). Accordingly, in this case, the judgment appealed from, which confirmed the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mill Neck that it was without jurisdiction to waive or modify a condition imposed upon a subdivision by the Planning Board, should be affirmed.