Hobbs Brook Farm Property Co. v. Planning Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
As in the case reported immediately before this one,1 the question presented is whether a plan filed under G. L. c. 41, § 81P, for an endorsement that approval under the subdivision law is not required, shows requisite access on a public way. In the preceding case we discussed the operation of § 81P, the general purpose of subdivision control, and the cases which considered whether an approval not required (“ANR”) plan showed practical and efficient access to a public way or showed access that was so barred and impractical as to be nonexistent, i.e., illusory. We do not repeat that discussion…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anzalone v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Wenton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Smalley v. Planning Board of HarwichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Hrenchuk v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Sturdy v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ball v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
- Branagan v. SwartzMassachusetts Superior Court · 2006
- Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. PeabodyMassachusetts Superior Court · 2004