<div dir="ltr">Mark: as a follow-up to Jeff's accurate description of what a PB can and cannot do with an ANR plan, see below for more information and for specific court cases where the courts describe the limits on PB actions for an ANR. Note that there are no court cases where the court has ruled that a PB can refuse to endorse an ANR plan because the lots shown do not meet the zoning lot size requirements. <div><br></div><div><p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black">The definition
of the term “lot” in the Subdivision Control Law does not refer to a lot that
satisfies zoning requirements. It makes no inference that the “lots” shown on a
plan are buildable. </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black">The courts have clearly stated that the board may not
withhold endorsement because the “lots” do not comply with zoning requirements
(other than frontage), board of health regulations, or adequate provision of
municipal services. </span><a href="http://masscases.com/cases/app/6/6massappct889.html" style="color:blue"><i>Gattozzi v. Dir. of Inspection Services of Melrose</i></a><span style="color:black">, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 889 (1978). [This
link will bring you to a page that lists 2 separate Appeals Court decisions.
The first is a contempt of court case – ignore that one – and the second is the
Gattozzi decision.]</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black;font-size:11pt">The
following cases provide examples where the courts discussed the relationship of
ANR plans and compliance with zoning requirements.</span><br></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:black">·<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span style="color:black">In
</span><a href="http://masscases.com/cases/app/10/10massappct599.html" style="color:blue"><i>Smalley v. Planning Board of Harwich</i></a><span style="color:black">, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 599, 603 (1980),
the Court rejected the argument of the plaintiff that a § 81P endorsement would
constitute a decision that the unrelated requirements of the local zoning code
had been met.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoNoSpacing" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;text-align:justify;font-size:11pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol;color:black">·<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span><span style="color:black">In
</span><a href="http://masscases.com/cases/app/35/35massappct514.html" style="color:blue"><i>Corrigan v. Board of Appeals of Brewster</i></a><span style="color:black">, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 514 (1993), the
Court said that a § 81P endorsement makes no determination of compliance with
the local zoning requirements. (other than frontage)</span></p><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font color="#000099" size="4" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000099" size="4" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000099" size="4" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Bob Mitchell FAICP</font></div><div>Planning Consultant</div><div>Land Use, Planning, Zoning, & Training Programs</div><div>151 Tremont Street Suite 23A</div><div>Boston, MA 02111</div><div>617-512-9751 (c)<span></span><span></span></div><div><a href="mailto:MitchellFAICP@gmail.com" target="_blank">MitchellFAICP@gmail.com</a></div><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, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:17 PM Jeff Lacy 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">Mark:<div>There’s only so far a PB can go in regulating an ANR. The criteria are limited to the status of the way, frontage along the way, and access across from the way across the frontage into the proposed lot. Other zoning factors, like lot area, are outside the scope the review. Many boards do put the notion you mentioned on the plan as a warning. Some also state “Not a building lot” on lots created but clearly substandard. It’s up to the town’s zoning enforcement officer to catch these deficiencies and decline to issue building permits.</div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Jeff Lacy</div><div>Rural Planning Associates </div><div>(413) 230-9693<br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Feb 4, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Mark Kresge 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><p class="MsoNormal">Hi planners-<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The 2010 ANR Handbook and the majority of threads in this forum indicate that a PB should concern itself only with frontage and adequacy of access issues when reviewing an ANR. Any other potentially problematic zoning issues are covered with a blanket statement like "No determination of compliance with zoning requirements has been made or intended." <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Other threads suggest that ANRs cannot, or should not, be used to create nonconforming lots, and cite unspecified case law.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Which is it? Opinions?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks!<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Mark Kresge<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Land Use Clerk<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Town of Hubbardston<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">7 Main St., Unit #7<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Hubbardston, MA 01452<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Web: <a href="http://www.hubbardstonma.us/" target="_blank">http://www.hubbardstonma.us</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></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></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>