[Massplanners] ANRs and Illusory Frontage

[Carolyn Britt]

All,

When I worked with the Rockport Planning Board there was the provision 
in the zoning that indicated that access to a lot had to be off the 
frontage. While some applicants were able to get around this, it 
generally held. Rockport had the issue  not only of wetlands but also of 
large rock outcroppings that could limit access.

While there, I prepared and the Planning Board adopted regulations 
regarding how to determine the adequacy of a an existing way to provide 
frontage. Again, ways were often constricted by boulders (it is not 
called Rockport for nothin'). We allowed that generally visible 
pull-offs could provide some relief to the constriction. The leniency 
was found generally on ways with few homes that accessed the hill area 
of the Town.

The Planning Board worked closely with the Fire Dept. and the State Fire 
Marshall on developing these regulations.

Carolyn Britt

Carolyn Britt, AICP

1 Shagbark Woods

Ipswich, MA 01938

978-356-9881

978-317-2145 cell

On 7/17/2024 10:58 AM, Massa, Lori via MassPlanners wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> In case it is helpful as an example- we just had an ANR case on a 
> private way that fell within item 3 of the ‘way’ types below. The 
> Planning Board had to make the determination that the way had 
> “sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to 
> provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed 
> use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby, and for the 
> installation of municipal services to serve such land and the 
> buildings erected or to be erected thereon.”
>
> If the Board cannot make this determination, the application needs to 
> be submitted as a subdivision.
>
> Lori
>
> Lori Massa, AICP(she/her/hers)
>
> Senior Planner
>
> Office of Planning and Community Development
>
> City of Melrose
>
> 562 Main Street
>
> Melrose, MA 02176
>
> 781-979-4193
>
> lmassa at CityofMelrose.org <mailto:lmassa at CityofMelrose.org>
>
> *From:* MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> *On Behalf Of 
> *ruralplanningassociates--- via MassPlanners
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 10:18 AM
> *To:* 'Andrew Groff' <agroff at williamstownma.gov>; 'Benson, Rachel via 
> MassPlanners' <massplanners at masscptc.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Massplanners] ANRs and Illusory Frontage
>
> Hi, Andrew:
>
> Assessing ANR submission is a game of threes.
>
> • The Way: is it proposed on one of the _three_ types of ways listed 
> in the statute (1) public, 2) created through subdivision, or 3) a way 
> in existence when subdivision control law became effective in the town 
> and is adequate in the opinion of the planning board)?
>
> • The Frontage (on the way): does the frontage meet the towns 
> requirements for length, contiguity, etc.?
>
> • The Access (from the way over the frontage): is the access illusory, 
> blocked by physical or regulatory barriers, etc.?
>
> The last one is the most subjective, but backed up by some case law.
>
> Jeff Lacy
>
> Rural Planning Associates
>
> 896 Graves Road
>
> Conway, MA 01341
>
> ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com
>
> (413) 230-9693
>
> *From:* MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> *On Behalf Of 
> *Andrew Groff via MassPlanners
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 4:48 PM
> *To:* Benson, Rachel via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
> *Subject:* [Massplanners] ANRs and Illusory Frontage
>
> Hi Planners
>
> Curious to how some of our municipal colleagues have handled any 
> similar situation in the past. We have an ANR plan that wants to 
> divide land into 12 building lots. These lots all have substantial 
> buildable land access problems. These include crossing wetlands and 
> steep slopes. Our bylaws allow access to buildable area via common 
> drives so as we have done in the past we have advised the applicant to 
> combine these applications to prove they have access to buildable 
> areas of each proposed lot. We have alternatively advised that they 
> could apply for and receive a valid order of conditions from the Con 
> Com to also show adequate access. The developer however has asserted 
> that the ANR submission is purely based on the division of land in 
> accordance with the town’s by-Laws requirements (frontage and area) 
> and access is never to be considered. The Planning Board has used the 
> case references in the ANR Handbook and the most recent MA Land Use 
> Law Handbook to assert they would like to see adequacy of access 
> proven before they endorse the plan. Anyone have any similar stories 
> or tips on resolving this impasse?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
>
> */Town of Williamstown/*
> Community Development Dept.
> Andrew Groff, A.I.C.P.
> Director
> 31 North Street
> Williamstown, Mass. 01267
> (413) 597-8284
> -----------------
> /The Secretary of the Commonwealth has determined that most e-mails to 
> and from municipal offices and officials are public records. 
> Consequently, confidentiality should not be expected. /
>
> ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the 
> Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public 
> record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated 
> exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.****
>
> ****CITY OF MELROSE PUBLIC RECORDS NOTICE: Please be advised that the 
> Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public 
> record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated 
> exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20240717/7f1a0389/attachment.htm>