Hamilton v. Planning Board of Beverly
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Gifford v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- North Landers Corp. v. Planning Board of FalmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Fenn v. Town of MiddleboroughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Smalley v. Planning Board of HarwichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Sturdy v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gates v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
- Cornell v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
- Matthews v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
- Bisson v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
- Annesse v. Billerica Department of Public WorksMassachusetts Superior Court · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.