<div dir="ltr">Hrm... <br><br>The statute reads "...a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, suitable grades and <b>adequate construction</b> to provide for <b>the needs of vehicular traffic </b>in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby..."<br><br>The "adequate construction" almost looks like it has possibility, but its modified by "the needs of vehicular traffic"... unless you can solidly make the case that a sidewalk is a necessary component to allow for "the needs of vehicular traffic"... <br><br>Is a bicycle considered a vehicle? Perhaps, then, a paved shoulder of no less than two feet, denoted by a white painted 'fog line' might be defensible?<br><br>- Doug.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Douglas Finn, Administrative Assistant<br>Edgartown Planning Board<div>70 Main Street, PO Box 5130<br>Edgartown, MA 02539</div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">508-627-6170<br></span><a href="mailto:dfinn@edgartown-ma.us" target="_blank">dfinn@edgartown-ma.us</a><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:15 AM Carolyn Britt via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Could you define a "way" in your zoning to include improvement
for pedestrians and bicycles? Then when the PB is considering
whether the way is of adequate width, grade, and construction it
could find that the vehicle portion is but the pedestrian portion
is not? <br>
</p>
<p>A few years ago in Rockport we developed a regulation stating
what would be considered an adequate way as guidance for people
owning land on all the dirt back roads with boulders intruding.
Why couldn't an adequate pedestrian way be rolled into this type
of mechanism?</p>
<p>I am looking to you attorneys out there who comment on these type
of issues with intelligence to comment on this. Thank you.</p>
<p>Carolyn<br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">Carolyn Britt, AICP
Community Investment Associates
P.O. Box 235
Ipswich, MA 01938
(978) 356-2164
(978) 317-2145 (cell)
(978) 356-9881</pre>
<div>On 9/11/2021 1:51 PM, Town Of Norfolk
via MassPlanners wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Richard,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There isn’t anyway. You can’t condition an ANR. The statute
is pretty clear. I do agree it’s a flaw. There are wonderful
things about Massachusetts that I love but our inability to get
land reform done isn’t one on them. In one person’s opinion our
governance structure is the real barrier. Local control verse
state control not even county control is the pull and tug
battle. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rich Mccarthy</div>
<div>Town planner</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sep 11, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Richard
Clark via MassPlanners <a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank"><massplanners@masscptc.org></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="color:black;font:10pt arial">Hello All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm going to take a second bite of the apple with
this one. I earlier asked if anyone had or knew of a way
to require sidewalks on an ANR lot. We have in our Rules
and Regulations a requirement for sidewalks in a
subdivision, but nothing with regards to ANR lots. I see
this as a major deficiency as these ANR lots are on
public ways where pedestrian traffic is more likely. A
public way is most a link to locations of interest. </div>
<div>I do thank those of you who replied to my earlier
query. There was, as I recall mention of legislation
that was not enacted. Action by the General Court may
well be a solution - someday. What I am looking for is
something that can be done today. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you and Be Well, </div>
<div>Richard Clark, Town of Dudley Planning Board</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<span>-- </span><br>
<span>MassPlanners mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
Carolyn Britt, AICP
Community Investment Associates
P.O. Box 235
Ipswich, MA 01938
(978) 356-2164
(978) 317-2145 (cell)
(978) 356-9881</pre>
</div>
-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>