Arrigo v. Planning Board of Franklin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the owner sold off portions of a large parcel leaving insufficient frontage for remaining lot
• planningboard’s waiver of the section 81L frontage requirements does not obviate the need for a variance from the board of appeals
• rejecting argument that a 6.68 percent deviation from a frontage requirement was de minimis
• pointing out that neglect of planning board does not preclude building inspector or zoning board from performing statutory duties of enforcing zoning by-law and that approvals of each board serve different purposes
• “It does not follow that the planning board is authorized ... to grant a variance”
• attempt to put two houses on ten-acre lot with 386 feet of frontage; required frontage per house, 200 feet

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).