Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XIV Chapter 82
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 82, § 1 (2026)

Jurisdiction; notice; hearings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 1. County commissioners, councils of governments, or other duly authorized councils, committees or boards, in this chapter called county commissioners, in their respective jurisdictions may lay out, alter, relocate, order specific repairs, discontinue and discontinue maintenance of county highways or roads in the manner herein provided, unless other provision is made by law. A council of governments shall have the authority to designate the powers of the council with relation to county roads to a subgroup of the council, duly constituted under its charter. In counties abolished under chapter 34B or by section 567 of chapter 151 of the acts of 1996 where no council of governments exists, the designated regional planning agency shall create a regional adjudicatory board, comprised of 4 members of the regional planning agency advisory board and the administrator for highways in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation or his designee, to act as county commissioners under this chapter. County roads in Berkshire county shall be exempt from the foregoing provisions and shall be subject to section 364 of chapter 159 of the acts of 2000. County commissioners may enter into agreements with any petitioner to indemnify themselves from payment of damages or other claims related to this chapter. The agreements shall have the force of law. Sections 1 to 13, inclusive, shall apply to a city council or aldermen when authorized by city charters to lay out, alter, relocate, order specific repairs, discontinue or discontinue maintenance of highways, so far as applicable, and any hearing under said sections required to be held before a city council or board of aldermen so authorized may be held before a duly authorized committee thereof.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no municipality shall layout, alter, relocate, discontinue or discontinue maintenance of an existing way at its point of connection, or within five hundred yards of its point of connection, with an adjoining municipality which excludes motor vehicle traffic from the way until and unless (a) the city, town or county initiating such layout, alteration, relocation, discontinuance or discontinuance of maintenance gives written notice of such action to the chief executive officer of abutting city, town, or county into which the said way extends, and (b) a public hearing is held by the city, town or county initiating such layout, alteration, relocation, discontinuance or discontinuance of maintenance, public notice of which must be published for each of the two weeks preceding such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the abutting city, town or county into which the said way extends, and (c) the chief executive officer of such abutting city, town or county concurs in writing, in such layout, alteration, relocation, discontinuance or discontinuance of maintenance. If within ninety days of the date of such hearing required by this section there is no concurrence by the abutting city, town or county into which the said way extends, the initiating city, town or county may make a written request to the administrator for highways in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to approve of the said layout, alteration, relocation, discontinuance or discontinuance of maintenance. If the said administrator so approves, the said layout, alteration, relocation, discontinuance or discontinuance of maintenance shall take effect and be valid without the concurrence of the abutting city, town or county into which the said way extends. This paragraph shall apply to towns or cities notifying and receiving concurrence from abutting towns or cities in the case of town roads; or counties, councils of governments, or regional adjudicatory boards notifying and receiving concurrence from abutting counties, councils of governments, or regional adjudicatory boards in the case of county roads.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Newburyport Redevelopment Auth. v. Commonwealth, 401 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Newburyport Redevelopment Auth. v. Commonwealth, 401 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). · cites it 4× “(a) The committee contends that the order of discontinuance of the ways was invalid because the order was adopted without compliance with the notice requirements contained in G. L. c. 82, §§ 1, 3 and 17, which are applicable to highways.”
Chandler v. Cnty. Commissioners, 437 Mass. 430 (Mass. 2002). “G. L. c. 82, §§ 1, 2, 3, 8, 10. Inherent in each of these is the physical alteration or construc *437 tian of roadways.”
Sanker v. Town of Orleans, 538 N.E.2d 999 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “4 The same, we think, holds for the design of public roads, which would readily be recognized as belonging in the “public policy and planning” category. Decisions supporting this view are Patrazza v.”
Coombs v. Bd. of Selectmen, 528 N.E.2d 136 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 82, §§ 1, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, & 15.”
Poremba v. City of Springfield, 238 N.E.2d 43 (Mass. 1968). “See G. L. c. 82, §§ 1, 7, as amended. Although we need not take judicial notice of the adoption of a charter under G.”
Town of Concord v. Neil E. Rasmussen & Others (Mass. 2025). “, G. L. c. 82, § 1 (coordination with neighboring municipalities), § 22 (written notice by town to abutters), § 23 (filing of plan in town clerk's office).”
Bean Porridge Farm Dev. Corp. v. Piktelis, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 496 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “Land may acquire the status of a public way either (1) by prescription, or (2) by dedication, prior to 1846, by the owner to permanent and unequivocal public use, or (3) by a laying out by public authority in the manner prescribed by G.L.c. 82, §1 through §32. In support of…”
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.