Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Planning Board of Beverly

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided September 28, 1993No. 92-P-491PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.

At trial and on appeal, the parties have defined as the question to be decided whether an endorsement on a plan of land by a planning board under G. L. c. 41, § 8IP (“subdivision approval not required”), unconditionally entitles the owner of the lots depicted on the plan, assuming building and zoning regulations are otherwise satisfied, to a building per mit. A judge of the Superior Court correctly concluded the answer to that question is: “no.” We summarize the facts which the parties have agreed upon.

In March, 1982, the planning board of Beverly approved a subdivision plan entitled Bates…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gifford v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  2. North Landers Corp. v. Planning Board of FalmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Fenn v. Town of MiddleboroughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  4. Smalley v. Planning Board of HarwichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  5. Sturdy v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gates v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
  2. Cornell v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
  3. Matthews v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
  4. Bisson v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  5. Annesse v. Billerica Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Superior Court · 1997

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

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

Powered by the Exa API