Perry v. Planning Board of Nantucket

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing inadequacy of public way in which to gain physical access to property
• board can properly disapprove a plan “because of inadequate access, despite technical compliance with frontage requirements”
• board could deny § 81P endorsement, despite technical compliance with frontage requirements, where access to lot was in effect nonexistent
• plan showing frontage on two paper ways, one an unconstructed “public way,” the other shown on a Land Court plan but not constructed on the ground
• a board acts “properly [in] denying] an 81P endorsement because of inadequate access, despite technical compliance with frontage requirements, where access is nonexistent for the purposes set out in § 81M”
• no way existed on the ground although it was depicted on town plans

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).