Case law

Hahn v. Planning Board

24 Mass. App. Ct. 553 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 30, 1987

See Glacier Sand & Stone Co. v. Board of Appeals of Westwood, 362 Mass. 239, 241-242 (1972); M. DeMatteo Construction Co. v. Board of Appeals of Hingham, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 446, 461 (1975). See also G. … L. c. 41, § 81M, to find an abuse of discretion by the board is also misplaced. See Pieper v. Planning Bd. of Southborough, 340 Mass. 157, 163-164 (1959). See also Baker v.

State Board of Retirement v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

77 Mass. App. Ct. 452 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 24, 2010

from Berrios v. … See Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. at 633 . Since CRAB’s construction of G.

Patelle v. Planning Board

6 Mass. App. Ct. 951 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 6, 1978

A planning board has no discretion to disapprove a subdivision plan which has been approved by the board of health and is in conformant with the reasonable rules and regulations of the planning board, Baker v. … Co. v. Board of Appeals of Hingham, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 446, 458-460 (1975). Deciding as we do, we do not reach any of the other contentions raised by the plaintiffs, although we consider them to be without merit.

Hrenchuk v. Planning Board

8 Mass. App. Ct. 949 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 31, 1979

L. c. 41, § 81L, as amended through St. 1965, c. 61, and (2) a planning board’s determination under § 81P that adequate access, as contemplated by § 81M, otherwise exists. Gifford v.

Quincy v. Planning Board

39 Mass. App. Ct. 17 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 31, 1995

Co. v. Board of Appeals of Westwood, 23 Mass. App. Ct. at 281-282 . … Co. v. Board of Appeals of Westwood, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 278, 281-282 (1986), quoting from SCIT, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 101 , 105 n.12 (1984). See also Y.D. Dugout, Inc. v.

Adams v. Planning Board

64 Mass. App. Ct. 383 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 31, 2005

the board’s approval. … See Weld v. Board of Appeals of Gloucester, 345 Mass. 376, 378-379 (1963). Cf. Miles v. Planning Bd. of Millbury, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 951 (1990).

Barnstable County Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

43 Mass. App. Ct. 341 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 12, 1997

Martinez v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 397 Mass. 386, 392 (1986) quoting from Grocery Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Department of Pub. Health, 379 Mass. 70, 75 (1979). … Contrast Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Pub.

Murphy v. Planning Board

70 Mass. App. Ct. 385 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 4, 2007

Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 151 (1981). … Dist. v. Board of Trustees of the Leonard Morse Hosp., 389 Mass. 729, 731 (1983); Freeman v. Planning Bd. of W. Boylston, 419 Mass. 548 , 559 n.13, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 931 (1995); Nantucket Land Council, Inc. v.

McDavitt v. Planning Board

2 Mass. App. Ct. 806 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 22, 1974

See Lyman v. Planning Board of Winchester, 352 Mass. 209, 214 (1967). … Park and Planning Board of Medfield, 344 Mass. 329, 334 [1962]) and that the plaintiffs had no reason to expect a waiver of the board’s regulation (compare G. L. c. 41, § 81R; Caruso v.

Southwick v. Planning Board

65 Mass. App. Ct. 315 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 20, 2005

L. c. 41, § 81BB (authorizing appeal of planning board decision by persons aggrieved); Rattner v. Planning Bd. of West Tisbury, 45 Mass. App. … See e.g., McLaughlin v. Selectmen of Amherst, supra at 364; Boudreau v. Coleman, supra. In Murphy v.

Collings v. Planning Board

79 Mass. App. Ct. 447 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 10, 2011

Although the waiver provision of § 81R confers considerable discretion on a planning board and a planning board is not required to grant a waiver, see Krafchuk v. … Meyer v. Planning Bd. of Westport, supra at 170. “A planning board does not have a roving commission.

Matthews v. Planning Board

72 Mass. App. Ct. 456 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 27, 2008

Therefore, we must ascertain the intent of the board when it granted approval for the Wood Duck subdivision plan. Cf. Toothaker v. … Ct. 386, 388 (1993) (note limiting number of lots in subdivision plan is integral part of planning board’s approval). See generally Stoneham v.

Gates v. Planning Board

48 Mass. App. Ct. 394 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 4, 2000

Since the opinion in Gifford v. … In the former case, the planning board should make the ANR endorsement, thereby giving notice that the board is not concerned with the plan. Smalley v. Planning Bd. of Harwich, 10 Mass. App.

Retirement Board of Taunton v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

56 Mass. App. Ct. 914 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 12, 2002

The Retirement Board of Taunton (RBT) appeals from a decision of the Superior Court, which affirmed a decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) granting Joseph Blain’s request for Group 4 retirement status … Retirement law, especially, may be “notoriously complex, and, in construing the effect of the provision in question, the court would hope to have the benefit of the experience of the appeal board.” Namay v.

Plymouth County Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

60 Mass. App. Ct. 114 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 4, 2003

Sugrue v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 45 Mass. App. Ct. at 5 . … Hotchkiss v. State Racing Commn., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 684, 689 (1998).

Sweenie v. Planning Board

69 Mass. App. Ct. 477 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 29, 2007

See Green v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown, 404 Mass. 571, 574 (1989); Watros *481 v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Assn., 421 Mass. 106, 108-109 (1995); Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. … See Marotta v. Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. at 204 (statutory notice confers the presumption of aggrievement); Watros v.

Craig v. Planning Board

64 Mass. App. Ct. 677 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 3, 2005

The board’s subsequent filing on October 22, was thus, as the judge noted, a “nullity” and did not alter the appeal period. See Cullen v. Planning Bd. of Hadley, 4 Mass. App. … However much the board “blunder[ed] its way” through the process, Windsor v. Planning Bd. of Wayland, supra at 655, quoting from Kay-Vee Realty Co. v.

Musto v. Planning Board

54 Mass. App. Ct. 831 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 24, 2002

Massachusetts Broken Stone Co. v. Planning Bd. of Weston, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 738, 742 (1998), quoting from Canter v. Planning Bd. of Westborough, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 306, 307 (1976). Board of health. … Ct. 517, 523 (1992) (case remanded for judicial determination whether board abused its discretion in denying waiver). Cf. MacGibbon v.

Sturdy v. Planning Board

32 Mass. App. Ct. 72 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 6, 1992

Ct. 144 (1983), the planning board claims that it may consider the adequacy of access to the lots, see Hutchinson v. Planning Bd. of Hingham, 23 Mass. App. … A more accurate formulation is that a planning board may withhold the ANR endorsement (where the tract has the required frontage on a public way) only where the access is “illusory in fact.” Corcoran v.

Wine v. Planning Board

74 Mass. App. Ct. 521 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 29, 2009

, capricious or arbitrary,” MacGibbon v. … ., Inc. v.