Legal Opinion

Amberwood Development Corp. v. Board of Appeals

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 29, 2005No. 04-P-1599PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMills, J.

In an action brought by Amberwood Development Corporation (Amberwood) under G. L. c. 240, § 14A, a judge of the Land Court, reversing the zoning board of appeals of Boxford (board), ruled that the application of a provision that prohibits the further subdivision of a lot that has benefited from an exception to a frontage requirement in the zoning by-law, while otherwise valid, was unconstitutional as applied to *206Amberwood’s lot of residentially zoned land.3 This is the town’s appeal. We reverse.

1. Background.4 Amberwood owns an 8.1 acre lot of land on Georgetown Road in Boxford.5 The lot was…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Nectow v. City of CambridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  4. Barney & Carey Co. v. Town of MiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  5. SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Board of BraintreeMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Regis College v. Town of WestonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
  2. Commonwealth v. Bank of America, N.A.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2012
  3. O'Brien v. PowersMassachusetts Land Court · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API