Carbone v. Planning Board

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Carbone v. Planning Board

596 N.E.2d 1031, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 909

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1992

DocketNo. 91-P-634

StatusPublished

This text of 596 N.E.2d 1031 (Carbone v. Planning Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carbone v. Planning Board, 596 N.E.2d 1031, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 909 (Mass. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

The planning board of the city of Beverly (board) appeals from a judgment of the Land Court ordering the board to approve the plaintiffs’ subdivision plan. The Land Court ruled that the board had committed error when it included a portion of an adjacent public street in calculating the length of the dead-end streets in the proposed subdivision. The board has appealed, claiming that in the circumstances it could consider the effect on the subdivision of the length of the adjacent public street.

The issue raised in this case is identical to that considered and decided in Federline v. Planning Bd. of Beverly, ante 65 (1992). There is no need for us to repeat our analysis.

The judgment is reversed, and a new judgment is to issue declaring that the board’s decision was not in excess of its authority.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The planning board of the city of Beverly (board) appeals from a judgment of the Land Court ordering the board to approve the plaintiffs’ subdivision plan. The Land Court ruled that the board had committed error when it included a portion of an adjacent public street in calculating the length of the dead-end streets in the proposed subdivision. The board has appealed, claiming that in the circumstances it could consider the effect on the subdivision of the length of the adjacent public street.

The issue raised in this case is identical to that considered and decided in Federline v. Planning Bd. of Beverly, ante 65 (1992). There is no need for us to repeat our analysis.

The judgment is reversed, and a new judgment is to issue declaring that the board’s decision was not in excess of its authority.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 N.E.2d 1031, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carbone-v-planning-board-massappct-1992.