Section 81. Sections seventy-three to seventy-nine, inclusive, shall not authorize the taking of land nor authorize a town to lay out or construct any way which may be indicated on any plan until such way has been laid out as a highway; nor shall said sections render a town liable for damages except such as may be sustained under section seventy-six by reason of the making and filing of any new plan or by reason of changes made in any plan already duly attested and filed, and for such damages as may be sustained by reason of the acts of the board of survey, its officers and agents under section seventy-nine. Any person injured in his property as aforesaid or by the establishment or discontinuance of exterior lines under section eighty may recover the damages so caused under chapter seventy-nine.
Del Duca v. Town Adm'r of Methuen, 329 N.E.2d 748 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 2דThe present case does not require us to determine whether any modification of this rule is appropriate in light of the Home Rule Amendment because the language of G. L. c. 41, § 81 A, itself resolves the issue.”
Gordon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Lee, 494 N.E.2d 14 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “supra ), whether by way of original approval (if approval was not sought in 1976) or by way of amendment under G.L.c. 41, § 81 W. [1] The majority opinion (nn.”
High Mesa Gen. P'ship v. Patterson, 242 P.3d 430 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “2d at 781 (explaining that for cases involving the subdivision control statute, G.L. c. 41, § 81 BB, the subdivision control act "provides for notice of such litigation to the public at large by requiring the filing of notice with the town clerk of any appeal from a subdivision…”
High Mesa Gen. P'ship v. Patterson, 2010 NMCA 72 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “2d at 781 (explaining that for cases involving the subdivision control statute, G.L. c. 41, § 81 BB, the subdivision control act “provides for notice of such litigation to the public at large by requiring the filing of notice with the town clerk of any appeal from a subdivision…”
Czyoski v. Members of the Plan. Bd. of Truro, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 198 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4דThe subject of this motion is Count II of the plaintiffs complaint, alleging that under G.L.c. 41, §81 (u), the requirement is that the Planning Board take final action within 90 days of the filing or record with the Town Clerk extensions of time beyond the 90-day period.”
Elm Street Realty Trust v. Plan. Bd., 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 642 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that summary judgment is allowed in favor of the Board affirming its decision denying the Trust’s application for ANR (approval not required) under G.L.c. 41 §81 P. The motion by the Trust for summary judgment is denied.”
Kuhn v. Kaufman, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 258 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). “The plaintiffs agree that Count V, alleging that the restrictions on variances and public water supplies were unlawfully imposed, is subject to the 20-day appeal period under G.L.c. 41, §81 IBB. Accordingly, Count V is dismissed.”
Anderson v. Lam Builders, Inc., 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 89 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). “The following evidence contained in the Rehearing Record contributes to a finding that Chapin Road is a way as defined in G.L.c. 41, §81: a 1913 Town Meeting record proving that the Town decided on the name for Chapin Road; a letter from the DPW Director establishing that the…”
Johnson v. Connors, 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 533 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). “G.L.c. 41, §81. His next step was to bypass the traditional subdivision plan in which all lots complied with the dimension requirements of the By-Law and pursue OSC in which reduced lot size is offset by parcels of community owned, undeveloped land.”
Bober v. Bd. of Selectmen, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 246 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005). “LXXXIX specifically provides in Section 9: All special laws relating to individual cities or towns shall remain in effect and have the force of an existing city or town charter, but shall be subject to amendment or repeal through the adoption, revision or amendment of a charter…”
Giuliano v. Town of Edgartown, 3 Mass. Supp. 213 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1982). “Under M.G.L.c. 41, § 81, once a definitive subdivision plan is submitted to the Planning Board for approval,.”
Abbott v. Wright, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 448 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995). “” In November, 1992, the Abbotts requested that the Planning Board for the Town of Hopkinton (“Planning Board”) release the lots from the requirement in G.L.c. 41, §81(U) and related Planning Board covenants that no lot can be conveyed (other than the entire parcel shown on the…”
Abbott v. Wright, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 448 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995). “” In November, 1992, the Abbotts requested that the Planning Board for the Town of Hopkinton (“Planning Board”) release the lots from the requirement in G.L.c. 41, §81(U) and related Planning Board covenants that no lot can be conveyed (other than the entire parcel shown on the…”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 81(u) — 1 case
Czyoski v. Members of the Plan. Bd. of Truro, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 198 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). “The subject of this motion is Count II of the plaintiffs complaint, alleging that under G.L.c. 41, §81 (u), the requirement is that the Planning Board take final action within 90 days of the filing or record with the Town Clerk extensions of time beyond the 90-day period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.