Legal Opinion
Richard v. Planning Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided July 7, 1980PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
Following refusal by the planning board of Acushnet (board) on May 16,1978, to endorse the plan filed by the plaintiff “approval under the subdivision control law not required” pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 81P, he appealed from the board’s action to the Superior Court under G. L. c. 41, § 81BB. The plaintiff (Richard) claimed entitlement to a § 8 IP endorsement on the ground that he was merely altering the boundaries of lots on an existing approved subdivision plan so as to create larger lots than those originally shown. This he had to do in order to comply with changes in the minimum lot area…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gifford v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- Daley Construction Co. v. Planning Board of RandolphMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Green v. Board of Appeal of NorwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Rettig v. Planning Board of RowleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- COSTANZA & BERTOLINO v. Planning Bd. of North ReadingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- North Landers Corp. v. Planning Board of FalmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- SMI Investors, Inc. v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
- Shea v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993
- Norberg v. Planning Board of UxbridgeMassachusetts Superior Court · 2010
- Symes Development & Permitting, LLC v. FergusonMassachusetts Land Court · 2021