Legal Opinion
Wolk v. Planning Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided May 28, 1976PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
There is no merit in the plaintiff’s contention that the zoning by-law amendment was rendered inapplicable to his subdivision plans by G. L. c. 40A, § 7A (as amended through St. 1965, c. 366, § 1), as we can discern no basis in the language or history of § 7A for permitting the two zoning “freeze” provisions in its first and second paragraphs to be combined in the “piggy-back” fashion attempted by the plaintiff. The planning board’s endorsement under G. L. c. 41, § 8IP, on his “perimeter plan” served only to give him the limited protection against zoning amendments contemplated by the second…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bellows Farms, Inc. v. Building Inspector of ActionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Chira v. Planning Board of TisburyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
- Doliner v. Planning Board of MillisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. COMMR. OF CORPS. & TAXN.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Ward & Johnson, Inc. v. Planning Board of WhitmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- D & P Equipment Corp. v. Harvey Construction Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
- Massachusetts Broken Stone Co. v. Town of WestonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
- Independence Park, Inc. v. Board of HealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
- Kilpatrick v. Planning BoardMassachusetts Superior Court · 2003