Patelle v. Planning Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
Although our task is made somewhat difficult by the defendants’ failure to file a brief, for all that appears, the critical issue to be decided is whether the planning board was required to hold an additional public hearing when it revoked its earlier disapproval of a definitive subdivision plan (the so called Blueberry Hill 1 Extension) and then approved that plan. The plaintiffs’ argument in favor of an additional public hearing is that the words "as amended” found in the second sentence of the second paragraph of G. L. c. 41, § 81U (as amended through St. 1972, c. 749, §§ 1 & 2) trigger §…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Doliner v. Planning Board of MillisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- M. DeMatteo Construction Co. v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
- Goldman v. Planning Board of BurlingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
- Mac-Rich Realty Construction, Inc. v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Cassani v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- River Birch Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- Doeblin v. Tinkham Development Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Vitale v. Planning Board of NewburyportMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Windsor v. PLANNING BOARD OF WAYLANDMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
- Patelle v. Planning Board of WoburnMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.