Landgraf Associates, Inc. v. Building Commissioner

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Landgraf Associates, Inc. v. Building Commissioner

354 N.E.2d 887, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 840

DecidedSeptember 30, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 354 N.E.2d 887 (Landgraf Associates, Inc. v. Building Commissioner) 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

Landgraf Associates, Inc. v. Building Commissioner, 354 N.E.2d 887, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 840 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that a lot shown on a definitive plan of subdivision was not entitled to the protection of G. L. c. 40A, § 7A (1st par.), as in effect prior to St. 1975, c. 808, § 3. That the lot had frontage on a public way did not preclude its inclusion in the plan even though it did not, as did the other lots shown on the plan, have frontage on a way within the subdivision. G. L. c. 41, § 81L. As we agree with the trial judge that the plaintiff was entitled to a building permit, we regard that part of the judgment ordering the building commissioner to issue the building permit to be correct. As the question of the denial of a variance was withdrawn from the case by stipulation of the parties, that part of the judgment declaring the decision of the board of appeals to be in excess of its authority must be struck. See Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudbury, 348 Mass. 658, 662 (1965). The final judgment is to be so modified and, as so modified, is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that a lot shown on a definitive plan of subdivision was not entitled to the protection of G. L. c. 40A, § 7A (1st par.), as in effect prior to St. 1975, c. 808, § 3. That the lot had frontage on a public way did not preclude its inclusion in the plan even though it did not, as did the other lots shown on the plan, have frontage on a way within the subdivision. G. L. c. 41, § 81L. As we agree with the trial judge that the plaintiff was entitled to a building permit, we regard that part of the judgment ordering the building commissioner to issue the building permit to be correct. As the question of the denial of a variance was withdrawn from the case by stipulation of the parties, that part of the judgment declaring the decision of the board of appeals to be in excess of its authority must be struck. See Vassalotti v. Board of Appeals of Sudbury, 348 Mass. 658, 662 (1965). The final judgment is to be so modified and, as so modified, is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 N.E.2d 887, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landgraf-associates-inc-v-building-commissioner-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack