context: The critical question to be answered is not whether the use of the land incidentally serves purposes consistent with art. 97, or whether the land displays some attributes of art. 97 land, but whether the land was taken for those purposes, or subsequent to the taking was designated for those purposes in a manner sufficient to invoke the protection of art. 97.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 9 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 872
citation_a.parenthetical: applicability of art. 97 hinged on whether land had in fact been conveyed "to the conservation commission ... to maintain and preserve it for the use of the public for conservation purposes"
citation_a.sentence: See also Toro v. Mayor of Revere, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 872 (1980) (applicability of art. 97 hinged on whether land had in fact been conveyed “to the conservation commission ... to maintain and preserve it for the use of the public for conservation purposes”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 444 Mass. 502, 508-509
citation_b.parenthetical: art. 97 protections may arise where subsequent to taking for purposes other than art. 97, land is "specifically designated" for art. 97 purpose by deed or other recorded restriction
citation_b.sentence: See Selectmen of Hanson v. Lindsay, 444 Mass. 502, 508-509 (2005) (art. 97 protections may arise where subsequent to taking for purposes other than art. 97, land is “specifically designated” for art. 97 purpose by deed or other recorded restriction).