[Massplanners] Dissolving a paper street

[Katrina O'leary]

Hi Mike,

Back in 2014 we had a similar case here in Middleton.  In this case, all properties with rights to the paper street already had frontage on another road and were using the paper street as part of their properties - in essence, they became abutters.    This worked for everyone involved until one property owner's septic system failed and he needed more land to create a new septic field.  The abutting owner was willing to sell him his part of the old paper street - but they needed to make the abandonment of this paper street "official."  The link below is to the ANR that was filed to "extinguish" the paper street and to show the parcels that would eventually be transferred.


https://salemdeeds.com/salemdeeds/PlanDisplay.aspx?type=rec&src=plbp&book=444&page=99&booktype=Plan&machine=*


I believe our Select Board also took action under MGL c40s15 to "abandon" or "extinguish" any rights the town had in the way.  I do remember there was some uncertainty if they even had to do this as the subdivision predated Subdivision Control and the town never accepted fee or easements in the paper road at any time.  If you are interested I can research whether they took official action on this.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40/Section15?



Katrina O'Leary, AICP
Middleton Town Planner
195 North Main Street    Middleton, MA   01949

________________________________
From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> on behalf of Michael McCarthy via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 2:18 PM
To: massplanners at masscptc.org
Subject: [Massplanners] Dissolving a paper street

Hello Mass. Planners,

I wanted to check the opinions of the great minds on our trusty listserv before I dove into the literature on this. We have a petitioner seeking to dissolve a paper street that divides two parcels he owns. The "street" is short and only abuts two other parcels before connecting to an existing public way. The petitioner and the abutters all have frontage on existing adjacent streets, so nobody would need to rely on this street to be built out for frontage in the future (no landlocking). He's presented us with a draft plan proposing the road be split into three parcels divided among the abutters but has asked what the contingency is if one of the abutters does not want to assume ownership of the land for tax or other reasons. The owner of one of the abutting properties lives out of state and he has had trouble contacting him.

The way I see it, there are two options: 1) he revises the plan to only dissolve the paper street between his two parcels, which is all he really wants to do anyway so he can extend his home or 2) he pursues agreements to have the abutters convey to him the land which they are entitled (he has indicated that this is agreeable to him) and provides us some notarized documentation. Do these approaches sound reasonable? Am I missing something here?

Thank you in advance,

Mike McCarthy
Assistant City Planner
City of New Bedford - Dept. of City Planning
508-979-1488

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20220311/0595c0a8/attachment.htm>