Deibel v. Yorke

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Deibel v. Yorke

340 N.E.2d 897, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 770

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 22, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 340 N.E.2d 897 (Deibel v. Yorke) 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

Deibel v. Yorke, 340 N.E.2d 897, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 770 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The Superior Court had power to remand the case to the board of appeals (board) for further findings and a statement of the board’s reasons for granting-the variance. Roberts-Haverhill Associates v. City Council of Haverhill, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 715, 717-719 (1974) . O’Brian v. Board of Appeals of Brockton, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 740 (1975) . 2. The board was not required to take the further action directed within either of the appeal periods set out in G. L. c. 40A, § 21 (as in effect prior to St. 1973, c. 1114, §4). The board could and did take its further action within a reasonable time. 3. Nothing in G. L. c. 40A, § 17 (as amended through St. 1973, c. 296, § 2) or § 18 (as amended through St. 1971, c. 1018), required the board to hold a further public hearing in order to consider the evidence taken at the first hearing or make further findings based on that evidence. Selectmen of Kingston v. Board of Appeals of Kingston, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 704 (1975). The judgment entered on August 23, 1974, is affirmed with double costs from September 23,1974.

So ordered.

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

1. The Superior Court had power to remand the case to the board of appeals (board) for further findings and a statement of the board’s reasons for granting-the variance. Roberts-Haverhill Associates v. City Council of Haverhill, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 715, 717-719 (1974) . O’Brian v. Board of Appeals of Brockton, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 740 (1975) . 2. The board was not required to take the further action directed within either of the appeal periods set out in G. L. c. 40A, § 21 (as in effect prior to St. 1973, c. 1114, §4). The board could and did take its further action within a reasonable time. 3. Nothing in G. L. c. 40A, § 17 (as amended through St. 1973, c. 296, § 2) or § 18 (as amended through St. 1971, c. 1018), required the board to hold a further public hearing in order to consider the evidence taken at the first hearing or make further findings based on that evidence. Selectmen of Kingston v. Board of Appeals of Kingston, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 704 (1975). The judgment entered on August 23, 1974, is affirmed with double costs from September 23,1974.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.E.2d 897, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deibel-v-yorke-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack