[Massplanners] [EXTERNAL] ANR Question

[Jeff Lacy]

Amy:

 

Great Friday brain teaser question!

 

Since the entire parcel being divided is owned in common, I would think the 10K lot with house and the 20K lot adjacent would immediately be considered “merged” for zoning purposes into what amounts to a 30K lot with house. I don’t think this adjacent lot could be sold into separate ownership as it is bound to the occupied lot. The adjacent lot should be labelled as “Not a Building Lot” on the endorsed ANR plans. Title attorneys should catch this and scotch the sale, or as a last resort if sold, the building inspector should not issue any building permits. 

 

Counting on variances from the ZBA to routinely fix the 10K problem is a dicey proposition given the strictness of 40A:10, the variance section in the Zoning Act. Therein a showing of hardship is required, and the hardship must stem from lot shape, soils, or topography. Self-created hardship from not having enough land area for four compliant lots isn’t an adequate showing and should be denied by the ZBA. 

 

Jeff Lacy

Rural Planning Associates

896 Graves Road

Conway, MA 01341

(413) 230-9693 (cell)

 <mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com> ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com

 

 

 

From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> On Behalf Of Michael McCarthy via MassPlanners
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Amy <s.poretsky at verizon.net>; Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] [EXTERNAL] ANR Question

 

Hi Amy,

 

I think the 10k lot would need a variance for lot size or it would be out of compliance with zoning and subject to enforcement. I believe this would only “kick in” as enforceable once the abutting lots are sold and there is no longer common ownership, so they can’t be considered merged for zoning, but that might depend on your ordinance. 

 

I have seen this occasionally and we usually require/suggest the applicant bring the ANR plan to the ZBA for variance approval and revise the plan to reference the recorded variance decision prior to endorsement.

 

Mike McCarthy

Asst. City Planner

New Bedford

 

From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> > On Behalf Of Amy via MassPlanners
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 10:11 AM
To: Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Massplanners] ANR Question

 

Say your town requires 20K sq ft lots and 100 feet of frontage. There is currently a home on a 70K lot. To make it easy, lets picture a rectangular lot and the house is all the way on the left side of the lot and currently meets all zoning regulations,

 

 

 

Say your town requires 20K sq ft lots and 100 feet of frontage.  There is currently a home on a 70K lot.  To make it easy, lets picture a rectangular lot and the house is all the way on the left side of the lot and currently meets all zoning regulations, all the land to the right side is wooded and buildable.

 

The owner brings forth an ANR splitting the one lot into 4.  The 3 new lots (to the right) meet current zoning, 20k lot size and 100 feet of frontage.  The original lot with the house is now only 10k. but meets the 100 ft frontage requirement. The engineer just stamps "unbuildable lot" on the lot with the original house.  This lot already has a house so they don’t care.  Is this allowed?

 

What if it was reduced to 10K and the frontage also fell under the required 100 ft, would this be allowed if stamped "unbuildable"?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Amy Poretsky

Northborough PB Chair

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20250606/558f51f9/attachment.htm>