Legal Opinion
Sturdy v. Planning Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided February 6, 1992No. Nos. 90-P-671 & 90-P-678PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.
Whether the plaintiffs’ proposed plan dividing land abutting on Side Hill Road in Hingham is entitled to the endorsement “approval not required” (ANR) under G. L. c. 41, § 8IP, depends on whether Side Hill Road is a *73public way3 and whether the access the way affords is illusory.
The judge found that the road has been a public way since 1737, but also found that, in its present condition, it did not satisfy the requirement of safe access for emergency and other vehicles. For this reason, he at first held that the planning board had the “right to determine whether sufficient access to the lots…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Dinsky v. Town of FraminghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. Town of HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Fenn v. Town of MiddleboroughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Perry v. Planning Board of NantucketMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
- Longley v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Gates v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
- Hamilton v. Planning Board of BeverlyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993
- Ball v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
- Dus v. Town of HancockMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2017
- Hobbs Brook Farm Property Co. v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.