<div dir="ltr">Just a thought, but isn't it possible, in keeping with the state statute, that the town/city adopt a standard for any non-public road... such as:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">A private right-of-way, a way in existence, or other path intended for use in the ways streets are used in _____ ("ROW") shall be considered to have "sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic" in accordance with Chapter 41 of the General Laws, if it meets the following criteria:</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">- a minimum of four feet of width for each side, reserved for pedestrian and bicycle use, plus<br>- a minimum of two feet of width exclusively reserved as a shoulder for each side; </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">- a minimum of eight feet of width exclusively reserved for each travelled lane, plus<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The ROW must be free of obstruction such as trees, boulders, walls, hedges, branches, or other items that may prevent free passage, from the ground level to a height of fourteen feet, for the entire width of the ROW as defined above, and along the entire length of the ROW.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Ways that do not meet this minimum criteria shall be deemed not to provide frontage for any bordering land.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">This shall apply to any divisions of land proposed on or after ______.</blockquote><div> </div><div>That means a two-way ROW must have no less than 28 feet of width. If not, it does not meet the local definition of 'sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction..." and won't provide frontage (required for ANR endorsement).<br></div><div><br></div><div>This would not affect any existing lots - a buildable lot today remains buildable tomorrow, even if the road isn't adequate - so no taking. It would only come into play upon an owner's request to divide - or subdivide - the lot.<br><br></div><div>Time and again, courts have upheld the municipality's right to determine the adequacy of a way in existence. In this case, it's far more defensible, as it is very specific and clearly delineated.<br><br>Just a thought from where I sit.<br><br>- Doug.<br><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></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 3:32 PM B 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 dir="auto">Wayne<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is that something you folks do? My wheels started turning along those lines when I read Richard and Rich's emails.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Another thought--with increasing attention on bike and ped access, maybe a land use dedication statute focused on frontage strips might get a little traction in the legislature. In any case, sends another signal as to how unbalanced land use regulation is in Massachusetts.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div>Bill Fitzgerald<div dir="auto">Avon DPW<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 2:34 PM Wayne Feiden via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">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 dir="auto">Or forget ANRs and amend your zoning to define frontage for zoning purposes as including sidewalks, with a special permit relief value for times when the right-of-way is not wide enough to accommodate sidewalks. You would still probably need to approve ANRs, but who cares if they can’t get a building permit?<br><br><div dir="ltr">Wayne Feiden, FAICP<div>Director of Planning & Sustainability </div><div>City of Northampton <br><span></span><div><br></div><div><span>Forgive typos. This is from my small phone.</span></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Sep 11, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Town Of Norfolk via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div dir="ltr">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" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div><span>-- </span><br><span>MassPlanners mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a></span><br></div></div>-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></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>