Legal Opinion

Matulewicz v. Planning Board

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 25, 2002PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCowin, J.

One who owns and wishes to divide a tract of land may seek, under § 8 IP of the subdivision control law (G. L. c. 41, §§ 81K-81GG), an endorsement from a planning board that approval under the subdivision control law is not required (hereafter ANR endorsement). G. L. c. 41, § 8 IP.3 This endorse*38ment “shall not be withheld unless the plan shows a subdivision.” Id. The term “subdivision” is defined to exclude a parcel if, inter alia, “every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  2. Insurance Rating Board v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
  3. In Re Civil Investigative Demand Addressed to Yankee Milk, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  4. Rettig v. Planning Board of RowleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  5. Casagrande v. Town Clerk of HarvardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Lam Builders, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2005
  2. Johnson v. ConnorsMassachusetts Superior Court · 2005
  3. TOWN OF CONCORD v. NEIL E. RASMUSSEN & OthersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API