Legal Opinion

Hobbs Brook Farm Property Co. v. Planning Board

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided January 4, 2000No. 98-P-1260PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Anzalone v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  2. Wenton v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
  3. Smalley v. Planning Board of HarwichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  4. Hrenchuk v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  5. Sturdy v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ball v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
  2. Branagan v. SwartzMassachusetts Superior Court · 2006
  3. Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. PeabodyMassachusetts Superior Court · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API