8659_PRELIMINARY PLAN - ASPENWOOD LN..pdf~~S-q -
rr-tli['(l(wr p\on-
,As{2Q()WdO If),
:jJo.v+ KbbJ!{
ou-fl~ l.{ () ~ Lflf
-~tt~t ------
-
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Moo complete Item 4 if ResIricIed Delivery Is des/red.
• Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. ArIfcle _ to,
Kltk iV1(:f\iaugnton
P.O. Box 270
East Granby, CT 06026
7009 0080 0001 9525 5557
PS Form 3811, February 2004 IlcmestIc Return ReceIpt '~1540
:': -" :
u~ 5,,= 'm!i'l'l!ll>"'C,~~.J,IIItE~~~~~l 2tj.-AL~.2Q.n>f"'M 2l
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and
TOWN OF AGAWAM
36 MAIN STREET
AGAWAM,MAOIOOI
PLANNING BOARD
box'
PLANNJNG BOARD
TOWN OF AGAWAM .
36 MAIN STREET
AGAWAM,MAOl001
G74J
TURAN SINAN
639 SILV ER ST
Clost
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2986
661 N~~ 1 4~7Ie0B7 ;1Z/18 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND
1"~i .R ,~N
lS DE ':::R RUN RD
AGAWAM MA ~~aa1 -3669
RETURN TO SENDER
II, Ii 1! I'!!l ij !' i, l' i'll, i" P' ill d! l! 1i!1! q, 1'!J' ,\) I ill,)1', i
July 9,2018
Dear Abutter:
Town of Agawam
Planning Board
36 Main Street, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1801
Tel. 413·726-9737 Fax 413-786-9927
Aspenwood Associates, LLC has submitted a Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the creation of
thirteen (13) lots to be located on property at 0 Doane Avenue, 125 Doane Avenue, and 0 Silver
Street. The Planning Board will be reviewing this plan at their July 19,2018 meeting. which
begins at 6:00 PM and will be held at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street.
If you have any questions, you may contact this office at 786·0400, extension 8245.
Sincerely,
~#~
Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman
Agawam Planning Board
MRP:amb
J
Agawam Law Department
Memo
To: Debbie Dachos
From: Vincent Gioscia, Esq.
cc: Dominic Urbinati
Date: 8/1612011
Re: Aspenwood Estates
Debbie:
Per your request I have reviewed the plans that you provided. I see no legal impediment to allowing
access to the industrial zoned land that directly abuts the public way. If the land owner wants to cross
the residential portion to the land to access the industrial zoned portion then the memo of August 26,
2010 should be oonsulted.
r.
Town of Agawam
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
CC:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Vince Gioscia, Solicitor
Agawam Planning Board
7/26/11
Preliminary Subdivision Plan -
Attached please find a recently submitted Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled
"Aspenwood Estates". The plan is unique in that the proposed street which is located in
a Residence A-1 District would also provide access to lots in the Industrial B District.
The Board is asking for your opinion on whether this is legal. They have an earlier
opinion written by Kristen Sopet. This opinion which is attached appears to be dealing
with driveways. Your review of this plan and opinion on whether the industrial lots can
be accessed via the new road is necessary for the Board to take action on the plan.
Thank you.
FROM THE DeSK OF ...
DEBORAH s. OACHOS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT
ToWN OF AGAWAM
36 MAIN ST
AGAWAM. MA 01001
Email addressplanning@agawam.ma.us
413-786·0400 X 283
Fax: 413·786·9927
TOWN OF AGAWAM
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Urbinati
CC: lBA
From: Kristen Sopet
Date: August 26,2010
Subject: MacNaughton Silver Street Frontage issue
Dear Nick:
This is a follow-up to our conversation on August 13, 20 I 0, regarding the Silver Street
property owned by Mr. MacNaughton. I spoke with the Solicitor regarding your interpretation of
the frontage laws as applied to the current split lot situation on Silver Street. I have also
conducted a significant amount of research regarding this matter. Below, you will find an
analysis of the issues that we discussed and a conclusion, which suggests a course of conduct.
1. Quantitative Frontage
As we discussed, frontage generally has two components: quantitative frontage, which is
the linear distance of the lot along a roadway; and qualitative frontage, which requires practical
access to the building site for fire, police, and emergency vehicles. See Gifford v. Planning
Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 808 (1978)(citing Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446
(1949».
From my understanding of our conversation, you believe that no quantitative (linear)
frontage exists for the industrial portion of this lot. This is because you consider frontage of this
property to be "residential frontage," inapplicahle to the industrially zoned portion of the plot,
because the portion of the land abutting the street is zoned residential. Based on your many
years of experience, you believe that applying this frontage to the industrial portion of the
property would be an "industrial use." As such, the proposed application of frontage would be
invalid because it is well settled that, barring extraordinary circumstances, a landowner may not
utilize residential land for industrial uses. See Section II.
Whether quantitative frontage can be considered a "use" appears to be an unsettled area
of the law. As of yet, I have been unable to locate any concrete statutory or case law support for
your interpretation; however, no sources appear to support the contrary position. Additionally,
whether the quantitative frontage of a split-zoned parcel is to be determined individually for each
portion of a parcel with a different zoning designation has likewise not been directly addressed
by the courts, the legislature, or the Town Code.
However, there are many examples in Agawam of split-zoned parcels in which the lot has
been divided such that the rear portion of the lot is zoned for uses that are not allowed in the
front portion of the lot, which abuts a public way. In a handful of these lots, buildings have been
constructed on the rear portion which does not abut the public way. But for quantitative fi'ontage
provided by the front portion, insufficient frontage would exist to enable the construction of that
(.
building. In other cases, the lots have been split such that two or more zo ning districts within
one parcel abut the street. These observations have been made utilizing the most recent building
zone map. It is possible that variances have bee n issued for these properties, allowing for a
deviation from the zoning code.
Some examples include: parcels along North West Street, Feeding Hills Road, Route 182
and Meadow Street, in which the only frontage for the parcel is provided by Residence A-2 land,
but buildings have been constructed on the portion of the plot zoned for Agricultural uses; and
lower Main Street, near the Suffield, CT, border, in which the only frontage for certain lots is
provided on the portion of the plots zoned for Business B land, while buildings or portions
thereof have been constructed on sections of the plots that are zoned Industrial A, which do not
abut a public way.
II. Qualitative Frontage
Regardless of whether linear frontage is considered a use, qualitative frontage would
most likely be considered a use because its primary purpose is access. See Dupont v. Town of
Dracut 41 Mass.App.Ct. 293, 294 (I 996)(noting that access and parking are considered
accessory uses). However, it is highly likely that Mr. MacNaughton would have legal support for
a variance that would allow him to utilize the residential portion of his land for access to the
back-set industrial portion of his parcel.
While it is generally true that the "[u]se ofland in one zoning district for an access road
to another zoning district is prohibited where the road would provide access to uses that would
themselves be barred if they had been located in the first zoning district," Beale v. Planning Bd.
of Rockland, 423 Mass. 690, 694 (1996), case law suggests that this rule should be leniently
applied where application would result in a deprivation of/awful use of the land. Such is the
case particularly when all access to the land would be barred. See Richard v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375, 375 (l968)(holding that an access road through a .
single-family-zoned district to a parking lot in a multifamily district may not be utilized, but
noting that the erected apartment building had access to the parking lot via a public road so that
the access road was not necessary); Lapenas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass.
530, 531, 533 (l967)(finding that where the only means of access to a commercially zoned
portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the same plot that was zoned for
residential purposes, the land owner was entitled to relief from the literal reading of a by-law that
would disallow use of the access road because to hold otherwise would deprive the owner of
lawful use of the property); Town of Chelmsford v. Byrne, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (1978)(holding
that use of a dirt road would be permissible where it was the only means of access to industrially
zoned land even though it crossed through a residential district, if prohibiting use of the dirt road
would "bar any access to the ... land for lawful use"); Building Inspector of Dennis v. Harney, 2
Mass. App. Ct. 584, 585, 587 (l974)(disallowing use by a business of an access road that
traversed a residential district but noting that the access road was merely "an additional means of
access to ... [the] business").
As you ac knowledged during our conversation, all access to the industrial portion of Mr.
MacNaughton's land would be barred should he be denied the right to utilize the frontage
provided by the residential portion of his parcel. In fact, this case is very similar to Lapenas v.
Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 531 , 533 (1967), in which the only means of
access to a commercially zoned portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the
same plot, which was zoned for residential purposes. In that case, the land owner applied for and
was denied a variance which would allow access through the residential land for a business. The
landowner appealed the denial and the court found in her favor because to deny the variance
allowing access would othenvise deprive the owner of lawful use of the property for which it
was zoned.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
It would appear that Mr. MacNaughton cannot, as a right, utilize the residential portion of
his land to access the industrial portion of this land, which is otherwise "landlocked." He does,
however, have the option of applying for a variance. Due to the similarity of this case to
Lapenas, he should be able to establish the hardship requirement. Note, though, that it is
unlikely that Mr. MacNaughton would be required to construct a public road to obtain frontage.
Utilizing an easement on his neighbor's property would not likely solve his issues of
access and frontage. However, should Mr. MacNaughton wish to utilize a shared driveway in
addition to obtaining access across the residential pOliion of his property, no case law or
statutory provisions appear to prohibit such an arrangement. Easements between citizens are
generally private matters and the Town would have little basis to interfere.
•
June 5, 2009
Gina Letellier, President
Cecilia Calabrese, Vice President
George Bitzas, Councilor
Paul C. Cavallo, Councilor
Jill Messick, Councilor
Joseph Mineo, Councilor
Dennis J. Perry, Councilor
Donald M. Rheault, Councilor
Robert E. Rossi, Councilor
Jill P. Simpson, Councilor
Robert M. Young, Councilor
Agawam Town Council
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
Dear Councilors:
•
On June 4, 2009, the Agawam Planning Board closed the public hearing on the Silver Street zone
change request by Aspenwood Associates LLC. There was lengthy discussion on the item.
Some ofthe points raised by both the proponent, residents, Planning Board members and staff
included:
the proposed zone change to residential would result in a less intensive use of the
property with less impacts on abutters than industrial development;
looping of the roadway and utilities would result in improved health and safety for Doane
Avenue residents;
the proposed site does not have legal access to a public way due to the existence of the
split zone;
there appears to be a high water table on the property as well as steep slopes, wetlands
and protected species;
could all of Agawam's Subdivision Rules and Regulations be met if a new residential
road was proposed for the property?
•
-2-
additional homes will present a tax burden on the Town;
new school children will tax the school system;
•
Agawam needs to maintain all of its industrial land. The taxes generated by industrial
development help to support necessary Town services;
due to the inability to use the property under current zoning, owner may seek a tax
abatement;
poor visibility when exiting Doane A venue creates a dangerous situation;
development ofthe Aspenwood Associates LLC site, cutting of the obstructing
vegetation, may improve the visibility;
abutters are now using the property for recreating and gardening, as well as disposal of
yard waste and trash;
should the residentially zoned portion of the property be changed to industrial so that the
site could be used for industrial purposes?
due to the existence of steep slopes and wetlands, residential development would be far
less dense than that on Doane Avenue.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing and after discussing the many issues raised, the Planning
Board's vote on a motion to send a negative recommendation to the Town Council resulted in a
deadlock with two in favor of the motion (paleologopoulos & Morassi) and two opposed to the
motion (Ward and Awand).
[fyou have any questions, please contact this office at 786-0400, extension 283.
Sincerely,
Travis P. Ward, Chairman
AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD
cc: Town Clerk, Town Solicitor, File
Roger E. Woods
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
~"'1l':-l Ii? & CO. ~~RI'VOODS
Land SlIrveying / Civil Enl:ineerinl:
SERVING MA & CT
1415 PARK ST, (RT 20)
PALMER, MA 01069
Tel: (413) 283-2232
Fax: (413) 283-2234
Email: RWoods@RogerWoodsCo.com
• •
Agawam Law Department
Memo
To: Debbie Dachos
From: Vincent Gioscia, Esq.
cc: Dominic Urbinati
Date: 8/16/201 1
Re: Aspenwood Estates
Debbie:
Per your request I have reviewed the plans that you provided. I see no legal impediment to allowing
access to the industrial zoned land that directly abuts the public way. If the land owner wants to cross
the residential portion to the land to access the industrial zoned portion then the memo of August 26,
2010 should be consulted.
• •
Town of Agawam
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
CC:
From:
Dale:
Subject:
Vince Gioscia, Solicitor
Agawam Planning Board
7/26/11
Preliminary Subdivision Plan -
Altached please find a recently submitted Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled
"Aspenwood Estates". The plan is unique in that the proposed street which is located in
a Residence A-1 District would also provide access to lots in the Industrial B District.
The Board is asking for your opinion on whether this is legal. They have an earlier
opinion written by Kristen Sopel. This opinion which is attached appears to be dealing
with driveways. Your review of this plan and opinion on whether the industrial lots can
be accessed via the new road is necessary for the Board to take action on the plan.
Thank you.
FROM THE DESK OF ...
DEBORAH S. DACHOS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT
TOWN OF AGAWAM
36 MAIN ST
AG'W'M, MA 01001
Email addressplanning@agawam.ma.us
413·786·0400 X 283
Fax: 413·786·9927
•
TOWN OF AGAWAM
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Urbinati
CC:ZBA
From: Kristen Sopet
Date: August 26, 20 I 0
Subject: MacNaughton Silver Street Frontage issue
Dear Nick:
•
This is a follow-up to our conversation on August 13, 2010, regarding the Silver Street
property owned by Mr. MacNaughton. I spoke with the Solicitor regarding your interpretation of
the frontage laws as applied to the current split lot situation on Silver Street. I have also
conducted a significant amount of research regarding this matter. Below, you will find an
analysis of the issues that we discussed and a conclusion, which suggests a course of conduct.
I .. Quantitative Frontage
As we discussed, frontage generally has two components: quantitative frontage, which is
the linear distance of the lot along a roadway; and qualitative frontage, which requires practical
access to the building site for fire, police, and emergency vehicles. See Gifford v. PI arming
Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 , 808 (1978)(citing Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446
(1949».
From my understanding of our conversation, you believe that no quantitative (linear)
frontage exists for the industrial portion of this lot. This is because you consider frontage of this
property to be "residential frontage," inapplicable to the industrially zoned portion of the plot,
because the portion of the land abutting the street is zoned residential. Based on your many
years of experience, you believe that applying this frontage to the industrial portion of the
property would be an "industrial use." As such, the proposed application of frontage would be
invalid because it is well settled that, barring extraordinary circumstances, a landowner may not
utilize residential land for industrial uses. See Section II.
Whether quantitative frontage can be considered a "use" appears to be an unsettled area
of the law. As of yet, I have been unable to locate any concrete statutory or case law support for
your interpretation; however, no sources appear to support the contrary position. Additionally,
whether the quantitative frontage of a split-zoned parcel is to be determined individually for each
portion of a parcel with a different zoning designation has likewise not been directly addressed
by the courts, the legislature, or the Town Code.
However, there are many examples in Agawam of split-zoned parcels in which the lot has
been divided such that the rear portion of the lot is zoned for uses that are not allowed in the
front portion of the lot, which abuts a public way. In a handful of these lots, buildings have been
constructed on the rear portion which does not abut the public way. But for quantitative frontage
provided by the front portion, insufficient frontage would exist to enable the construction of that
• •
building. In other cases, the lots have been split such that two or more zoning districts within .
one parcel abut the street. These observations have been made utilizing the most recent building
zone map. It is possib le that variances have been issued for these properties, allowing for a
deviation from the zoning code.
Some examples include: parcels along North West Street, Feeding Hills Road, Route 182
and Meadow Street, in which the only frontage for the parcel is provided by Residence A-2 land,
but buildings have been constructed on the portion of the plot zoned for Agricultural uses; and
lower Main Street, near the Suffield, CT, border, in which the only frontage for certain lots is
provided on the portion of the plots zoned for Business B land, while buildings or portions
thereof have been constructed on sections of the plots that are zoned Industrial A, which do no!
abut a public way.
II. Qualitative Frontage
Regardless of whether linear frontage is considered a use, qualitative frontage would
most likely be considered a use because its primary purpose is access. See Dupont v. Town of
Dracut 41 Mass.App.Ct. 293, 294 (1 996)(noting that access and parking are considered
accessory uses). However, it is highly likely that Mr. MacNaughton would have legal support for
a variance that would allow him to utilize the residential portion of his land for access to the
back-set industrial portion of his parcel.
While it is generally true that the "[u]se ofland in one zoning district for an access road
to another zoning district is prohibited where the road would provide access to uses that would
themselves be barred if they had been located in the first zoning district," Beale v. Planning Bd
of Rockland, 423 Mass. 690, 694 (1996), case law suggests that this rule should be leniently
applied where application would result in a deprivation of lawful use of the land. Such is the
case particularly when all access to the land would be barred. See Richard v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375 ,375 (1 968)(holding that an access road through a·
single-family-zoned district to a parking lot in a multifamily district may not be utilized, but
noting that the erected apartment building had access to the parking lot via a public road so that
the access road was not necessary); Lapenas v. Zoning Bd of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass.
530,531,533 (1 967)(finding that where the only means of access to a commercially zoned
portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the same plot that was zoned for
residential purposes, the land owner was entitled to relief from the literal reading of a by-law that
would disallow use of the access road because to hold otherwise would deprive the owner of
lawful use of the property); Town of Chelmsford v. Byrne, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (1978)(holding
that use of a dirt road would be permissible where it was the only means of access to industrially
zoned land even though it crossed through a residential district, if prohibiting use of the dirt road
would "bar any access to the ... land for lawful use"); Building Inspector of Dennis v. Harney, 2
Mass, App. Ct. 584, 585, 587 (I 974)(disallowing use by a business ofan access road that
traversed a residential district but noting that the access road was merely "an additional means of
access to ... [the] business").
As you acknowledged during our conversation, all access to the industrial portion of Mr.
MacNaughton's land would be barred should he be denied the right to utilize the frontage
provided by the residential portion of his parcel. In fact, this case is very similar to Lapenas v.
Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 531, 533 (1967), in which the only means of
• •
access to a commercially zoned portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the
same plot, which was zoned for residential purposes. In that case, the land owner applied for and
was denied a variance which would allow access through the residential land for a business. The
landowner appealed the denial and the court found in her favor because to deny the variance
allowing access would otherwise deprive the owner oflawful use of the property for which it
was zoned.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
It would appear that Mr. MacNaughton cannot, as a right, utilize the residential portion of
his land to access the industrial portion of this land, which is otherwise "landlocked." He does,
however, have the option of applying for a variance. Due to the similarity of this case to
Lapenas, he should be able to establish the hardship requirement. Note, though, that it is
unlikely that Mr. MacNaughton would be required to construct a public road to obtain frontage.
Utilizing an easement on his neighbor'S property would not likely solve his issues of
access and frontage. However, should Mr. MacNaughton wish to utilize a shared driveway in
addition to obtaining access across the residential portion of his property, no case law or
statutory provisions appear to prohibit such an arrangement. Easements between citizens are
generally private matters and the Town would have little basis to interfere.
10/20/2011 15 :52 F~X 4138210831 ~001/002 -•
TOWN OF AGAWAM
Department of Public Works
To:
Cc:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning
File
Engineering
October 19, 2011
1000 Suffield Street • Agawam, MA 01001
Tel (413) 821-0600 • Fax (413) 821-0631
Christopher J. Golba -Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
Aspenwoods Estates -Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review
We have reviewed the plan entitled ·Prelininary Subdivision Plan -Agawam, Massachusetts;
Prepared For: Aspenwood Associates, LlC; Prepared By: D.LBean, Inc.; Scale: '"=80'; Rev:
1-14-2011". This Preliminary Plan is ready for the Planning Board's signatures.
All comments for the Preliminary Plan have been addressed. The following items from our
7/21/11 memo to Planning shall be addressed with the Definitive Plan for Aspenwoods
Estates:
1. A Sight Distance review will be required where AspenwOQds Lane intersects Silver Street.
2. The connector between Doane A~e. and Aspenwoods Ln. will require signage (One
Way/Stop signs) to help traffic navigate through this intersection. It is recommended that
this connector be named Doane Ave. Ext. or Aspenwoods In. Ext.
3. Proposed subdivision must maintain existing storm water drainage path along the
southern most residential property line of Doane Ave. and include in drainage
calcula1ionsld-pond design.
4. If any lots (Lot B andlor Lot 9) are developed as industrial lots, larger water/sewer
systems may be required in Aspenwoods Ln. Industrial development of these lots might
generate more than 400 lIehicle trips per day which a Lane is designed to handle.
Industrial traffic would also have to be taken into consideration when designing the
pavement thickness in Aspenwoods Ln.
5. Signage ("Not A Throughway") would be needed on Doane Ave. (and Doane Ave. Ext or
Aspenwoods Ln. Ext.) to prevent the heavy vehicular trellel created by these industrial
lots from traveling through Doane Ave.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our division.
s;~~. 'fJUJi tL
Rich~l.ze..;t4 Michelle C. Chase, P,E.
Civil Engineer I Town Engineer
~ISU8D_SPENWOOOS ESTAl£S\'02 PREllM-SIGNf<TURES,DOC
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837
Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927
August 23, 2011
Kirk MacNaughton
P.O. 270
East Granby, CT 06026
Dear Mr. MacNaughton:
.~
C')
. '" eN
. .". :x
At its duly called meeting held on August 18,2011, the Agawam Planning Board voted to
approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Aspenwoods Estates", prepared by D.L. Bean,
fnc. and dated 6-17-2011, rev: 7-14-2011, with the condition that the July 21, 2011 (attached)
Engineering Department comments be addressed and three paper copies and one mylar of the
Preliminary Plan are to be submitted to the Board for signatures.
If you have any questions, please contact this office at 786-0400, extension 283.
Sincerely, -,
;;;;'~f?!J~
Travis P. Ward, Chainnan
AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD
TPWIDSD:prk
cc: D.L. Bean, Inc.
Eng. Dept.
Bldg. Dept.
Town Clerk
File
u.s. Postal Service .
CERTIFIED MAIL· RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage PrOVIded)
.-'I
Posta.ge $ /-------,
C Return Receipt Fee o (Endorsement ReqUired) 1---------1
CJ R."""ed [)O"""" Fe< CJ (Endorsement ReQuIred) 1-___ --1
CO
pol", H't
g~Th:~~'~::~::.~F~~;$~::::::~------1
~t~~~~~::~~~~::~;~z::;:;:;~;·:::~:~::::::l
>
>
TO
D.L. BEAN, INC ....
Land Consultants ..
Forty School Street
WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSmS 01085
(413) 562-7566
FAX (413) 562-2091
Agawam Planning Board
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
DATE I JOB NO.
A,,,,,," t , Q 10l ,
ATTENTION
Debbie
RE:
Kirk MacNaughton
& Joe Valenti
WE ARE SENDING YOU ill Attached o Under separate cover via __________ the following items:
o Shop drawings il!i Prints o Plans o Samples o Specifications
o Copy of letter o Change order o _________________________________ ___
COPIES OATE NO. DESCRIPTtQN
5 7-17.~"u 1 Black Line Prints -Aspenwood Estates -Silver Street
1 8-19-11 1 Extension Letter -Meadow Street, Agawam
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
o For approval
ill For your use
Il!I As requested
o For review and comment
o Approved as submitted o Resubmit ____ copies for approval
o Approved as noted o Submit copies for distribution
o Returned for corrections o Return corrected prints
0 ____________________________________ ___
o FOR BIDS DUE _____________ _ o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS ___________________________________________ _
// 'ltd? J I(~
SIGNED: -----,//'fl'-P-,--_...o....c ~'//'-l-,------
If enclosures:lre not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Mar£! E. Shute, Sr. V. President
COPY TO ____________________________________ _
• • Agawam Law Department
Memo
Too Debbie Dachos
From: Vincent Gioscia, Esq.
cc: Dominic Urbinati
Date: 8/1612011
Reo Aspenwood Estates
Debbie:
Per your request I have reviewed the plans that you provided. I see no legal impediment to allowing
aocess to the industrial zoned land that directly abuts the public way. If the land owner wants to cross
the residential portion to the land to aocess the industrial zoned portion then the memo of August 26,
2010 should be consulted.
1
• •
Town of Agawam
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
CC:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Vince Gioscia, Solicitor
Agawam Planning Board
7/26/11
Preliminary Subdivision Plan -
Attached please find a recently submitted Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled
"Aspenwood Estates". The plan is unique in that the proposed street which is located in
a Residence A-1 District would also provide access to lots in the Industrial B District.
The Board is asking for your opinion on whether this is legal. They have an earlier
opinion written by Kristen Sopet. This opinion which is attached appears to be dealing
with driveways. Your review of this plan and opinion on whether the industrial lots can
be accessed via the new road is necessary for the Board to take action on the plan.
Thank you.
FROM THE DESK Of."
DEBORAH S. DACHOS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELDPEMENT
TOWN OF AGAWAM
36 MAIN ST
AGAWAM.MA0100l
Email addresspJanning@agawam .ma.us
413-786-0400 X 283
Fax: 413-786-9927
•
TOWN OF AGAWAM
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Urbinati
CC: ZBA
From: Kristen Sopet
Date: August 26, 2010
SUbject: MacNaughton Silver Street Frontage issue
Dear Nick:
•
This is a follow-up to our conversation on August 13, 2010, regarding the Silver Street
property owned by Mr. MacNaughton. I spoke with the Solicitor regarding your interpretation of
the frontage laws as applied to the current split lot situation on Silver Street. I have also
conducted a significant amount of research regarding this matter. Below, you will find an
analysis of the issues that we discussed and a conclusion, which suggests a course of conduct.
I. Quantitative Frontage
As we discussed, frontage generally has two components: quantitative frontage, which is
the linear distance of the lot along a roadway; and qualitative frontage, which requires practical
access to the building site for fire, police, and emergency vehicles. See Gifford v. Planning
Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 808 (I 978)(citing Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446
(1949)).
From my understanding of our conversation, you believe that no quantitative (linear)
frontage exists for the industrial portion of this lot. This is because you consider frontage of this
property to be "residential frontage," inapplicable to the industrially zoned portion of the plot,
because the portion of the land abutting the street is zoned residential. Based on your many
years of experience, you believe that applying this frontage to the industrial portion of the
property would be an "industrial use." As such, the proposed application of frontage would be
invalid because it is well settled that, barring extraordinary circumstances, a landowner may not
utilize residential land for industrial uses. See Section II.
Whether quantitative frontage can be considered a "use" appears to be an unsettled area
of the law. As of yet, I have been unable to locate any concrete statutory or case law support for
your interpretation; however, no sources appear to support the contrary position. Additionally,
whether the quantitative frontage of a split-zoned parcel is to be determined individually for each
portion of a parcel with a different zoning designation has likewise not been directly addressed
by the courts, the legislature, or the Town Code.
However, there are many examples in Agawam of split-zoned parcels in which the lot has
been divided such that the rear portion of the lot is zoned for uses that are not allowed in the
front portion of the lot, which abuts a public way. In a handful of these lots, buildings have been
constructed on the rear portion which does not abut the public way. But for quantitative frontage
provided by the front portion, insufficient frontage would exist to enable the construction of that
• •
building. In other cases, the lots have been split such that two or more zoning di stricts within
one parcel abut the street. These observations have been made utilizing the most recent building
zone map. It is possible that variances have been issued for these properties, allowing for a
deviation from the zoning code.
Some examples include: parcels along North West Street, Feeding Hills Road, Route 182
and Meadow Street, in which the only frontage for the parcel is provided by Residence A-2 land,
but buildings have been constructed on the portion of the plot zoned for Agricultural uses; and
lower Main Street, near the Suffield, CT, border, in which the only frontage for certain lots is
provided on the portion of the plots zoned for Business B land, while buildings or portions
thereof have been constructed on sections of the plots that are zoned Industrial A, which do not
abut a public way.
II. Qualitative Frontage
Regardless of whether linear frontage is considered a use, qualitative frontage would
most likely be considered a use because its primary purpose is access. See Dupont v. Town of
Dracut 41 Mass.App.Ct. 293 , 294 (1 996)(noting that access and parking are considered
accessory uses). However, it is highly likely that Mr. MacNaughton would have legal support for
a variance that would allow him to utilize the residential portion of his land for access to the
back-set industrial portion of his parceL
While it is generally true that the "[u)se ofland in one zoning district for an access road
to another zoning district is prohibited wbere the road would provide access to uses that would
themselves be barred if they had been located in the first zoning district," Beale v. Planning Bd.
of Rockland, 423 Mass. 690,694 (1996), case law suggests that this rule should be leniently
applied where application would result in a deprivation of lawful use of the land. Such is the
case particularly when all access to the land would be barred. See Richard v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375,375 (I 968)(holding that an access road through a
single-family-zoned district to a parking lot in a multifamily district may not be utilized, but
noting that the erected apartment building had access to the parking lot via a public road so that
the access road was not necessary); Lapenas v. Zoning Bd of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass.
530, 531, 533 (l967)(finding that where the only means of access to a commercially zoned
portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the same plot that was zoned for
residential purposes, the land owner was entitled to relief from the literal reading of a by-law that
would disallow use of the access road because to hold otherwise would deprive the owner of
lawful use of the property); Town of Chelmsford v. Byrne, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (I 978)(holding
that use of a dirt road would be permissible where it was the only means of access to industrially
zoned land even though it crossed through a residential district, jf prohibiting use of the dirt road
would "bar any access to the ... land for lawful use"); Building Inspector of Dennis v. Harney, 2
Mass. App. Ct. 584,585,587 (l974)(disallowing use by a business of an access road that
traversed a residential district but noting that the access road was merely "an additional means of
access to ... [the) business").
As you acknowledged during our conversation, all access to the industrial portion of Mr.
MacNaughton's land would be barred should he be denied the right to utilize the frontage
provided by the residential portion of his parcel. In fact, this case is very similar to Lapenas v.
Zoning Bd of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 531, 533 (1967), in which the only means of
• •
access to a commercially zoned portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the'
same plot, which was zoned for residential purposes. In that case, the land owner applied for and
was denied a variance which would allow access through the residential land for a business. The
landowner appealed the denial and the court found in her favor because to deny the variance
allowing access would otherwise deprive the owner of lawful use of the property for which it
was zoned.
III, Conclusion and Recommendation
It would appear that Mr. MacNaughton cannot, as a right, utilize the residential portion of
his land to access the industrial portion of this land, which is otherwise "landlocked." He does,
however, have the option of applying for a variance. Due to the similarity of this case to
Lapenas, he should be able to establish the hardship requirement. Note, though, that it is
unlikely that Mr. MacNaughton would be required to construct a public road to obtain frontage.
Utilizing an easement on his neighbor'S property would not likely solve his issues of
access and frontage. However, should Mr. MacNaughton wish to utilize a shared driveway in
addition to obtaining access across the residential portion of his property, no case law or
statutory provisions appear to prohibit such an arrangement. Easements between citizens are
generally private matters and the Town would have little basis to interfere.
•
Aspenwoods Estates
Preliminary Waiver Requests
•
1). Section 159 -7 c.(8)(a) to allow deep hole examinations in lieu of soil borings.
2). Section \59-23.A. to allow sidewalks to be excluded from sections of the proposed
streets.
AUG u 4 2011
~ iM~j i 'd~ R .. 1.)~k.:~J.f .\ ." . .... ~.,.P'~-!'~~~V* ,I"
>
>
TO
D.L BEAN, INC.
Land Consultanta
Forty School Stre~
WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01085
(413) 562·7566
FAX (413) 562·2091
Agawam Planning Department
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
DATE I JOB NO. August 1 2011
ATTENTION
Debbie
REo "Aspenwoods Estates"
WE ARE SENDING YOU i:J Attached o Under separate COver via __________ the following items:
o Shop drawings i:J Prints o Plans o Samples o Specifications
o Copy of letter o Change order o
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 -1 List of Preliminary Waiver Requests -tfAspenwoods Estates"
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
o For approval
III For your use
o As requested
o For review and comment
o Approved as submitted o ·Resubmit ____ copies for approval
o Approved as noted o Submit ____ copies for distribution
o Returned for corrections o Return _____ corrected prints
0 ____________________________ ___
o FOR BIDS DUE ______________ _ o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS ________________________________________________ _
AUt, u 4 2011
COpy TO Kirk Ma.<:--... "'N"'''',<I;'gg<h.,.t ... I>""Ol-------______ _
SIGNED: ----------,,f-I-Y---'-...... .-<--"------------
" enclosures ~re not as noted, kindly notify us st once.
• •
ASPENWOOD ASSOCIATES LLC
P.O. BOX 270 EAST GRANBY, CT 06026
TELEPHONE (860) 653-9327 FAX (860) 653-4908
Email: KirkialMacNaughtonRE.com
Agawam Planning Board
c/o Deborah Dachos
Agawam Town Hall
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
Sent via fax 413-786-9927 and U. S. Mail
Re: Aspenwood Estates, Silver Street
Dear Debbie,
July 28, 2011
As discussed earlier this week, we hereby request that the review of our preliminary plan
be postponed on August 4 and then continued on August 18,2011.
I will be out of town on August 4 and unable to attend that meeting. We would also like
enough time to review any determination made by the City Solicitor.
Please email any correspondence from the City Solicitor to me at the above email
address.
Sincerely,
Ji~~
Manager
-.-Jl ,1
il " .... --------.---.. --H-.' n
07/21/2011 15:13 FAX 4138210831
To: cc:
From:
Data:
•
Planning
File
Engineering
July 21. 2011
•
TOWN OF AGAWAM
Department of Public Works
1000 Suffield Street • Agawam, MA 01001
Tel (413) 821-0600 • Fax (413) 821-0631
Christopher J. Golba -Superintendent
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Aspenwoods Estates -Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review
~001/005
We have reviewed the plan entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plan -Agawam, Massachusetts;
Prepared For: Aspenwood Associates, LLC; Prepared By: D.L.Bean, Inc.; Scale: 1"=80'; Date:
6-17-2011" and we note the following;
TRAFFIC
1. A Sight Distance review will be required where Aspenwoods Lane intersects Silver
Street.
2. The connector between Doane Ave. and Aspenwoods Ln. will require signage (one
way/stop sign) to help traffic navigate through this intersection. It is recommended that
this connector be named Doane Ave. Ext. or Aspenwoods Ln. Ext.
DRAINAGE
1. Tie existing C.B.'s at end of Doane Ave. into new drainage system in Aspenwoods
Estates. Size proposed d-pond accordingly.
2. Proposed subdivision must maintain eXisting storm water drainage path along the
southern most residential property line of Doane Ave. & include in drainage
calculations/d-pond design,
WATER/SEWER
1. Water line location in Aspenwoods Ln. is too close to the proposed C,B.'s,
2. Extend water line in Aspenwoods Ln. to back of proposed cul-de-sac to service the lots
in this area. Install hydrant at end of line.
3, Proposed water line in Aspenwoods Ln. is to be looped with existing water line in
Doane Ave.
4. Indicate how Lot 13 is to be tied into the sewer.
OTHER
1. Please show the building envelopes.
2. If Lots 1, 9, & 10 are developed as industrial lots, larger water/sewer systems may be
required in Aspenwoods Ln. Industrial development of these three lots might generate
07/21/2011 15 :13 FAX 4136210831 Ii!l 0021005 • •
more than the 400 vehicle trips per day which a Lane is designed to handle. Industrial
traffic would also have 10 be taken into consideration when designing the pavement
thickness in Aspenwoods Ln.
3. Signage ("Not A Throughway") would be needed on Doane Ave. (and Doane Ave Ext.
or Aspenwoods Ln. Ext.) to prevent the heavy vehicular travel created by these
industrial lots from traveling through Doane Ave.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our division.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Seidnitzer
Civil Engineer I
S;\SUBOIIMSPENIIIIOODS ESTATES\.01 PRELIMINARY.DOC
~.
Michelle C. Chase, P.E.
Town Engineer
•
•
The following residents of Doane Avenue hereby petition the town of Agawam to
reject the Preliminary Subdivision Plan submitted by Mr. Kirk McNaughton of
Connecticut doing business as Aspenwood Estates. This plan would adversely affect
Doane Avenue by eliminating its current status as a "dead end" street. Doane
Avenue is an old, narrow road with no sidewalks and increased traffic would create
a safety hazard for all concerned, especially children.
Name Address
'~TY!). r Ii ~ '(Xi) /1. ~.
{!... 0.~, ~·o L J.r. (03 1m i-1 0 AI/(? ., IJ.. b 3. \x.AAJ f Avp
~("J\, 00 ({';<t e. 'S~ \,../.J', J. K
~ /'--/('7 <" ?~ ~.,p AlP
'VA, L -n °"'->-3~ {JoOo.n e Av e
v ~ .J (-.J< U <'7j)~ C\...c.{
RECE iVED
II'!: 1.1 2011
• • •
Address
\ C)) 4 ~""O (~\ ""-
I----------------------l---------------j
•
Memorandum
To: Planning Board
CC: Chief Robert Campbell
From: Sergeant Richard Niles
Subject: Preliminary Plan -Silver Street -McNaughton
Date: July 19, 2011
Based on the information provided, it would appear this proposal would have little
negative impact on pedestrian, bicycle, and/or motor vehicle traffic safety.
Respectfully Submitted
4-.,Il.· ~
Sergeant Richard Niles
Safety Officer
Agawam Police Department
Lt. Eric GiJli
• •
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
OFFICE OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewer: D. Dachos July 14,2011
Date Received: June 17,2011 Distribution Date: June 20(Engineering) .
Planning Board Meeting Date: July 21, 2011
Mandatory Date for Final Action: August 1,2011
Name of Applicant: Kirk MacNaughton
Address: P.O. Box 270, East Granby, CT
Address of Property: easterly of Silver Street and southerly of Doane Ave.
Name of Subdivision: Aspenwoods Estates
Number of Lots: 13 Deposit: $550 -The correct filing fee is $575
Preliminary Plan Content
Statement of Interest in Land: Statements of Interest are received from all property owners.
There are no seals on some of the Statements.
Location map of site and surroundings: O.K.
Environmental Study:
Relationship to zoning, etc: The property is zoned Residence A-I and Industrial B. The
plan shows a proposed road and single family lots located in the Residence A-I area. There are
also three large lots located in the Industrial B area. The minimum lot size in Residence A-I is
17,000 sq.ft. with 125' of frontage. The minimum lot size in Industrial B is I acre with 100' of
frontage.
Existing topo, water table, etc.: No water table information has been provided.
Impacts of proposed development: All waivers being requested should be listed at this
time. A narrow strip is shown between the proposed road and the property ofKeogh/Cosimini.
Doane Avenue is shown as the second means of egress. An opinion from the City Solicitor
should be sought regarding whether Lots 1,9 and 10 can be used for industrial purposes. The
road is laid out as a Lane which is designed to accept up to 400 vehicle trips a day. If these lots
can be used for industrial purposes, a traffic study might be warranted.
Other:
Lot survey with existing easements, abutters, zone lines, and existing streets: O.K.
Topographic Plan:
•
Existing contours at 2' intervals: O.K.
Environmental elements: The Conservation Commission recently approved a wetland
delineation for the site. A Determination of Applicability should be filed to determine whether a
Notice of Intent should be filed.
Proposed streets and lot lines: See Impacts of Development above.
Sewage, water and drainage: See Engineering comments.
Print •
Parcel 10: H6 1 21
Owner: ASPENWOOD ASSOC
Parcel Address: SILVER ST
•
o
Interactive Map
Date: 7/14/11
806
Scale:
Page 1 of 1
1611 Feet
I
http://hosting.tighebond.com/agawarn/prinLaspx?maptype=5&image=http%3a%2t"%2fprojects. tighebond.co... 7114/201 1
Print •
• . . '. . .. '\ . ... -.. ............ __ III n .. ·
~=O()AI~E AVE _ ROW ~ .. ~ A1 ............... --". ... • I •
•
,
f ,
Parcel IO: H6 1 21
Owner: ASPEN WOOD ASSOC
Parcel Address: SILVER ST
,
~,
H6 1 21
• "
' .
• ..
......
,
..... ',-,
)
i
Interactive Map
•
\
J
, -,
o
-~-
\
, ,.-
t
---~ . .-" -'
--• \ ,
\ ,
\
, -~-
. _ .......... ---.
Page I of I
Date: 7/14/11
495 991 Feet
I
Scale: 1"=495'
http://hosting.tighebond.comlagawam!prinl.aspx'Jmaptype=5&image=http%3a%2fOIo2 fprojects. tighebond.co... 7/14/20 I I
~ ! ~ u <
~ ~ ,
!-.
z Ii • 0 ~ • ~ ~ • < • • §
!l
:o~
:::~ ~i h
~~ -~ . ." .. . " "' ;:i
'Ii
gj
!~
~ .> >.
/
... 't \Mt:,.
;~ / j !
I, "!"
I" ,
I
1 /
~~ / ~ .~ ~~ ,
/ ~ " i
~ .w /,1 ~w ~ i~ ~. ~i • / w > ~ ~
~ i I
./S:o-. h!d I n
• •
Print •
Parcel !D: H6 1 2 1
Owner: ASPEN WOOD ASSOC
Parcel Address: SILVER ST
o
Interactive Map
•
Date: 7/14/11
806
Scale: 1"=806'
Page 1 of 1
1611 Feet
I
http://hosting.tighebond.comlagawamlprint.aspx?maptype=5&image=http%3a%2f''102fprojects. tighebond.co... 7/14/201 1
Print • •
J
,. . .. . ... ~ . .. "" .... ' .... _ .. -... n .. ·
__ "~~,,"AVE __ ROW '---1 Af ................ -.~.1IIiI •• •
H6 1 21
IB t-· -. -~-. ~
(
I
Parcel ID: H6 1 21
Owner: ASPENWOOD ASSOC
Parcel Address: SILVER ST
(
o
Interactive Map
Page I of I
\
.--l \ \
~ ~t .----
I
\ • \ •
\ ._---.
\
\
Date: 7/14/11
495
Scale: 1"=495'
991 Feet
I
http://hosting.tighebond.comlagawamlprint.aspx?maptype=5&image=http%3a%2f%2fprojects. tighebond.co... 7/14/20 I I
• •
Memorandum
To: Planning Board
cc: Chief Robert Campbell RE CEIVED
From: Sgt. Richard Niles JUL 11 2008
Subject: Silver Street -McNaughton PIA &IN" ... , Cjr~~ w t..~r' .. HiUgVYUll.J
Date: 07/07/2008
Need more details on the "Emergency Access Road", such as-
I. Would the emergency access road fall on a property line or solely on one
resident's property?
2. Who will maintain this road? (weed control, plow snow, etc. to prevent it
from becoming a mud bog)
3. Who will assume key control for locks on the gate(s)
4. Who will assume responsibility for locklkey replacement for damaged/rusted
lockslkeys?
5. Will the gates be located where the public road meets the emergency access
road, or in a distance from the public way)?
6. Who will assume responsibility for gate maintenance? (paint & grease)
7. Will there be some type of boundary border to prevent residents from using
the emergency access road for private purposes? (as a private way/place to
store boats, trailers, campers, etc) If so, who will maintain the border?
(whether it be a fence, or shrubs)
Respectfully Submitted
#.a~
Sgt. R. Niles
Safety Officer
Agawam Police Department
• •
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837
Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927
MEMO
TO: Building Inspector, Police Dept., Fire Dept.
FROM: Planning Board
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan -Silver Street -McNaughton
DATE: July 14,2011
Please review and comment on the attached Preliminary Plan for McNaughton on Silver Street
prior to the Board's July 21 st meeting.
Thank you.
DSD:prk
•
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837
Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927
PLANNING BOARD
July 13, 2011
Dear Abutter:
Kirk McNaughton has submitted a Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Aspenwood Estates"
to the Agawam Planning Board for property located on Silver Street. The property contains
approximately 23.3 acres and the proposal is to subdivide it into thirteen (13) lots.
The Planning Board will be reviewing this Preliminary Plan at their meeting on July 21, 20 II
which begins at 7:00 PM and will be held at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street. If
you have any questions you may contact this office at 786-0400, extension 245.
Sincerely,
~~ i? iCLo-t~s~
Travis P. Ward, Chairman
AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD
TPWIDSD:prk
Parcels
FAGIN ROBERT A
302 HOPKINS PLACE
LONGMEADOW, MA 01106
GLORY DAYS REALTY L.L.C.
4 WILDFLOWER CIRCLE
WESTFIELD, MA 01085
LUCIA ,RAYMOND F
C/O PICKETT CARL W
729 SILVER ST
AGAWAM , MA 01001
CABANA RONALD J SR
CABANA NORMA I
14 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM , MA 01001-2904
AGAWAM SILVER LLC
630 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001
JACOBS JOSEPH EUGENE+
JACOBS LINDA JEAN
64 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
KIBBE STUART A JR
KIBBE SHIRELY A
40 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
GAY MICHAEL A SR
20 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
ROSATI JOHN F
ROSATI THOMAS J
415 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2921
GRIFFITH ROBERT W
GRIFFITH DEBORAH ANN M
94 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01001
• FERRY WM. +CORCODILOS PETER
TRSTES. GAC REAL TYTRUST
720 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2907
GLORY DAYS REALTY L. L. C.
4 WILDFLOWER CIRCLE
WESTFIELD, MA 01085
LUCIA STEVEN R SR
LUCIA SUSAN L
761 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2988
RODRIGUEZ, JR ARCADIO
RODRIGUEZ DORINNE A
687 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001
KING PETER T
639 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2986
RICE ANGELA A
58 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
JONES KENNETH J
JONES DELORES M
34 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
WESTERN MASS ELECTRIC CO
P.O. BOX 270
HARTFORD , CT 06141
CARUSO GUSTIN
WHITMAN SARAH
781 OSPREY DR
PORT ORANGE, FL 32127
MASON JOANNE L
88 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
• SOVEROW CHARLENE M
P.O. BOX 757
AGAWAM, MA 01001
LUCIA RAYMOND F
LUCIA JOANNE
PO BOX 777
AGAWAM, MA 01001
LUCIA RAYMOND F
LUCIA JOANNE
PO BOX 777
AGAWAM , MA 01001
BNB LLC
6 CHARLES CT
SUFFIELD, CT 06078
Page 1 of2
WESTERN MASS ELECTRIC CO
P.O. BOX 270
HARTFORD, CT 06141
KIBBlE STUART
KIBBlE SHIRLEY
40 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
GAUNT DONALD TR
GAUNT LUCY TR
10305 US HWY 1
SEBASTIAN , FL 32958-5838
WESTERN MASS ELECTRIC CO
P.O. BOX 270
HARTFORD, CT 06141
KEOGH HARRiET S
COSIMINI RUTH L
102 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2906
BRAUER TRENT A
80 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
http://hosting.tighebond.comiagawamiprintLabels.aspx?dist=500&pi~S= 6/29/2011
Parcels
SHERRY ROGER A
SHERRY PATRICIA A
70 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
FOWLER EILEEN M
FOWLER BRIAN D
25 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
CATANIA MADELINE R
49 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
GUSHUE JOHN P
71 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
ROOT ROBERT M
ROOT CHRISTINE M
93 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
GHEDI CHARLES LISA
DIANE + SUSAN ELLSWORTH
117 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
AGAWAM PARTNERS LLC
8 MARCELLA AV
WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052
SILVER STREET REALTY LLC
699 SILVER STREET
AGAWAM, MA 01001
• ASSELIN + VIECELI PARTNERSHIP
HERITAGE VENTURES LLC
27 ROCHELLE ST
WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01089
JONES CLIFFORD E JR
JONES DOROTHY J
33 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-0097
ALLEN ROBERT S
55 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
BRAGG ROBERT D
BRAGG EVELYN A
79 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
CONSOLINI JAMES A
CONSOLINI BERNICE M
101 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
DESROSIERS RAYMOND E
DESROSIERS MARILYN A
125 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
CMC LLC
P.O. BOX 673
AGAWAM, MA 01001
• JAYDUB LLC
ONE WHALLEY WAY
SOUTHWICK, MA 01077
TIERNEY,GREGORY R
C/O TIERNEY GREGORY R
39 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-0097
ZIEMBA KIMBERLY
PAGELLA BRIAN T
63 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2903
SMITH MERVIN R
HOLLAND ANDRE
85 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001
WALKER RICHARD C
111 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
DESROSIERS RAYMOND E
DESROSIERS MARILYN A
125 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
Page 2 of2
WESTERN MASS ELECTRIC CO
P.O. BOX 270
HARTFORD, CT 06141
http://hosting.tighebond.comlagawarnlprintLabels.aspx?dist=500&pid~ords= 6/29/2011
Parcels
WESTERN MiELECTRIC CO
\ .
P.O. BOX 21
HARTFORD, CT 06141
WESTERN MA.SS. E ELLEECTCT/c C CO
P.O_ BOX 270 V
HARTFORD, CT 06141
/
102 DOANE AV .
KEOGH HARRIEfJS
COSIMINI RUT L
AGAWAM , MA 0 1-2906
BRAUER TRENT A /
80 DOANE AVE V
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2904
/
WESTERN MASS ELECTJIC CO
P.O. BOX 270~
HARTFORD , CT 06141
SMITH~R
HOLLAND\;INDRE
85 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001
WALKER R1CHAjR
111 DOANE AV
AGAWAM, MA 01 -2905
DESROSIERS RAYM NO E
A
(
AGAWAM PARTNERS i LC
B MARCELLA"A\! I
WEST ORANGE ;-m-67052
ASPENWOOD ASSOC, LLC
P.O. BOX 270
EAST GRANBY, CT 06026
• WESTERN MASS 7~0
P.O. BOX 270
HARTFORD, CT 06141
/
WESTE,RN Miss ELECTRIC CO
P.O. BO~O
HARTFORD, CT 06141
GRIFFITH ROBER~W
GRIFFITH DEBO H NN M
94 DOANE AV
AGAWAM , MA 01001
SHERRY ROGER A
GUSHU~ JOHN!
71 DOANM
AGAWAM , MA 01001-2903
ROOT ROBERT
M
AGAWAM , MA 01001-2903
GHEDI CH RLES (SA
DIANE + S~~LSWORTH
117 DOANE AV
AGAWAM , MA01001-2905
~ KOZHENEVSKY PROPERTIES LLC
449 SILVER ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001
CAAC LL
• EUGENE+
AGAW
ROSATI JOHN F
ROSA~A5J
41551 R ST
AGAWA ,MA 01001-2921
AGAWAM , MA 01001-2903
CONS
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
125 DOANE AVE
AGAWAM, MA 01001-2905
Page I of I
WESTERN MASS LECTRIC CO
WESTERN MAS~LECTRIC CO
\
P.O. B~ 270 \
HARTFORD '<:TY6141
http://hosting.tighebond.comlagawarnlprintLabels.aspx?dist=SOO&p?H62. 4&c~ 6/29/2011
Date: 6/20/2011
• _To the Department Officer makinil':. Payment:
Received of ~.L. Bean, Inc.
the sum of -=-...,...=--:=---:=-_--:: _____ --=5:.:5:.:0:..:.0:.:0 __ --===~
for the Prel. Plan Filing Fee ending 6/2012011
!""'\s Listed Above
-=O'""o""lI-ars---
for collect;c
MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT RSCPT#: 712850
Town of Agawam
TOWN HALL
36 MAIN STREET
AGAWAM MA 01001
DATE : 06/21/11
CLERK: ka.d
CUSTOMERi#: 0
COMMENT:
TIME: 11 :35
DEPT:
CHG; MISC MISCELLANEOUS C
AMOUNT PAID; 550.00
PAID BY: PLANNING
PAYMENT METH; CHECK
REFERENCE:
AMI' TENDERED;
AM'!' APPLIED:
CHANGE:
550.00
550.00
.00
550.00
•
• •
MEMO
TO: Engineering Department .;
FROM: Planning Board
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan -Silver Street -Aspenwood Estates -McNaughton
DATE: June 20, 2011
Please review and comment on the attached Preliminary Plan for McNaughton on Silver Street
prior to the Board's July 21 ~ meeting.
Thank you.
DSD:prk
• D. L. BEAt, INC. LAND CONSULTANTS
Forty School Street
Westfield, Mass. 01085
Travis P. Ward, Chainnan
Agawam Planning Board
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
• (
413-562-7566
Fax !~J ¥7?~3r¥091
RE: Preliminary Subdivision -673 Silver Street -"Aspenwood Estates"
Dear Board Members:
SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS
Enclosed please find the following infonnation pertinent to the above referenced project.
1. Application Fonn "B" for Preliminary approval and filing fee.
(D.L. Bean, Inc. check for $550.00) (2 pages)
2. Copy of Letter of Intent to Town Clerk.
3. Attested copies of the deeds to the property.
4. Statements of Interest (5 pages)
5. Environmental Study (2 pages)
6. Determination of applicability (4 pages)
7. 4 Blue Line Prints of Preliminary
This infonnation is submitted on behalf of our client, Kirk MacNaughton. We would
appreciate the opportunity to present this project at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Sincere ,
D.L., h<~
RECEIVED
Marc . Shute, Senior Vice President JUN 1 7 Z011
MES/ssc PLANNiNG sOARD
• •
TO\VN OF AGAWAM '
36 MAl!\: STHEET AGAWAM, MASSACHlTSETTS OlOOl
T el. 413-786-Q4VO
Form B
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
>-
-C) FILE ONE COMPLETED FORM WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND A COPY~ITH>
THE TOWN CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION ~~I-~~
::c e>3:
Agawam June 17! 2011 ~4 lEp l>fd
2>0 , ;r::>: ~ :::: :t-To the Planning Board: >C/) o CJ'I ..,
The undersigned here~ith submits the accompanying pr~imi~ry
Plan of property located In the Town of Agawam for approval as~
subdivision under the requirements of the Subdivision Control Law
and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of
the Planning Board in the Town of Agawam.
L Name of Appl icant Kirk MacNaui:hton
Address P.O. Box 270 -East Granby. CT060Z6
2. Name of Engineer or Sur-veyor D.T. Bean, Inc
Address 40 School Street -Westfield. MA 01085
3. Deed of Property Recorded in _-"H"'a"'m"'p"'d"'e"'n==-___ Registry
17746 290
Boo k . 17802 Page _-:-:-'"'12"'6"-___ _
Land Court Certificate #22624
4. Location and Description of Property: (Attached Sheet).
5. A list of the documents included in this application shall
accompany notice to the Town Clerk.
Documents required to be submitted with this notice:
a. Notarized statement of interest in the land .
b. Env ironmental study.
c. Plans
d. Certified Copy of Deed
Signatur e of ownerJ4M/I(<Af:I~ )!t:.5
Address prJ · BqKZZO ~'/.1/: -t".?::-W.
•
Supplement Sheet -Preliminary Subdivision
Form "B" 4.
Location: 673 Silver Street
•
Property is located on the easterly side of Silver Street and the southerly side of Doane Avenue.
The property contains approximately 23.3 acres of land and will be subdivided into building lots.
• D. L. BEAt, INC. LAND CONSULTANTS
Forty School Street
Westfield, Mass. 01085
Clerk's Office
36 Main Street
Agawam, MA 01001
RE: "Aspenwood Estates"
Dear Clerk:
• c
413-562-7566
Fax # 413-562-2091
June 17,2011
SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS
This is to serve notice that on this date we have filed a Preliminary Subdivision plan with
the Planning 8oard.
Enclosed is a Fonn "8" application with pertinent details oflocation and owners.
ice President
MES/ssc
,INDIYIDUAL)
,>
to , 0: 1/'1Jt , ''f, .. G1l Ib r' m
SlP 2G ..
__ .il I awl .-, I ,cod 'm'h
filiry~
C,'sh ~
Index ~
N :-t" I J.j.
~.p";
~L
.IOM 'niB OIFICti Ol'
1' ...... 872
-
• M._CHU .................... O •• OVO~'L ' ... , •••
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we ELOI DESROSIERS and MARILYN A.
DESROSIERS, of 125 Doane Avenue, Agawam, Hampden County, Massachusetts,
and NANCY M. WEST
d( i:loInIpIt' *_
HOI, •• ",.,.;tJ, far conlidcratioo paid. and in full consideration of ""'''~ •. ,,(. ••• "4 f(l.\~u' ~.~ .. 't; ..
8'","10 ELOI DESROSIERS and MARILYN A. DESROSIERS. husband and wife, • as tenants by the entirety
of 125 Doane.Avenue, Agawam, Hampden County, withauarrautu ntIttIIIataI
Massachusetts
theJandin Agawam, Hampden County, Massachusetts
Westerly
Northerly
Easterly
Southerly
(Dncripdon 118.~. if.,)
by Lots 3, 4, and 5 as shown on Plan No. 18679-n filed
with Certificate of Title No. 9327, one hundred nincty-
eight and 04/100 (198.04) feet;
by said land of Henry E. Smith et aI, fifty and 28/100
(50.28) feet;
by land new or formerly of Frank Charvat, one hundred
ninety-eight and 07/100 (198.07) feet; and
by land now or formerly of Lucy Banomi et aI, fifty and 29/100 (50.29) feet.
Also another parcel of land situated in Agawam bounded and described as
follows:
Northwesterly by Doane Avenue Circle one hundred sixty-seven and 98/100
(167.98) feet;
Northerly
Easterly
Southerly
by Lot 4 as shown on plan hereinafter mentioned one
hundred forty-four (144) feet;
by land now or formerly of Mary A. Taylor one hundred
twenty-five (125) feet; and
by land now or forMerly of Lucy Bonomi et a1, two hundred seventy-four and 54/100 (274.54) feet .
Said land is shown on Lot 5 on said plan.
All of said boundaries are determined by the Court to be
located as shown upon subdivision plan numbered 18679-D, drawn by
E. Boise Lewis, Surveyor, dated June 3, 1959, as modified and approved
by the Court, filed in the Land Registration Office, a copy of a
portion of which is filed with Certificate of Title No. 9327.
s,,~ (\do~Ti"l ru:, ~1I.n.
· ... d.~.y~.t'~yc .. ~'7f '" te ..... ·~;;Il.L~ ....... . ...................... ........................ ·:t~~~~ .... · .. ·~····· .... · ...... · ..
............................................................................ ~~*f::~E1R'[Jgii~": .................... .
HAMPDEN. .s. September 22. 1986
Then penooally appeared the .bove named NANCY M. WEST. ELOI DESROSIERS and
~~RrLYN A. DESROSIERS
and admowledged the fOU',80inB instnlllle:at to be t.heir flee aCt and deed, before me,
(THJ'; J'OLLOW'NC IS NOT P.UT OP THI PI'Irbo AN~ IS N01" TO n ~.)
CHAPTEI JS} SEC. 6 AS "MIiNDEn BY OtAPTEIl .(97 OP 1969
Per, dfcd PlCRhled for record dWl (OIlraiR m haft' endolSlC'd lIpori.it .he rull U~, ~~ a!!d pOst ollia-addl'CM of the ~r-ntm and
• rlrifal fIf tilt am6W1t of tBe filII consldeu(ioa themJf in dollan or 1hc flalun: 0( rbc DlMr coR1;denillion !Mrftor. jf not ddi~ for I
.perij;( /TII'ItIICtay ,um. ']be lull aJflsideralion 5biilll mean the ,,,tal prke IOf W tunRP!l(~ ..nthlMlt dedo"ctiott (or anr l~nJ. or encumbrMcc'
.. ,umni by the-,~ or rfttlJining tJt:oreon. All $LKh mdllncmcl1ts and t«ihlb s}u.lI be IC'COtdl.Q as pnt of tt.t drool. F.ill1re to co/Ilf'ly with
thi' ~tion ~lu.ll not .I'£e.:t lbe u.lidity of .n)' [!~d. No ";'I\:i$tct nf dd5 ,hali luept a deed Int r~(lIdinl-unlcn it is in rornpliallt"c wilh the
~uirtment5 of Ihi' ~tiolll.
•
A TRUE PHOTOCOPY ~ RfCORDEO IN HAMPOft.
COUNTY REGISTRY DISTRICT OF THE lAND
COURT AND IT IS SO CERTIFIED .
ArnsT: t.-/.P toll DOC. N0i IS-to
CERTlFlCAl£ Of TIl1I NO. L?-2 V BOOK li(7jJ-() PAGE ___ _
iLPcf~
I ASSISTANT R!OORO£R
•
Bk 17746 Pg291 *24464 • •
Exhibit "A"
The land in Agawam, Hampden County, Massachusetts, being known and designated as Lot ·C·
as shown on a plan of land entitled "Division of property, Agawam, Massachusetts for James A.
Paroline, Jr. dated April 12, 2001" and recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds on
June 18, 2001 in Book of Plans 321, Page 76, to which plan reference may be made for a more
particular description.
Containing approximately 16.30 acres more or less.
SUBJECT TO Order of Conditions to Agawam Conversation Commission recorded in the
Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 10827, Page 273.
SUBJECT TO a twenty (20) foot wide drainage easement as set fort in a Deed recorded in the
Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 10248, Page 596.
This lot contains certain areas or abuts areas protected by Chapter 131, Section 40 of the General
Laws of Massachusetts known as the Wetlands Protection Ad. and comes under the jurisdiction of
the Agawam Conservation Commission. No cutting of trees, clearing of brush, digging, filling in
with soil or debris or the building of bridges Is permitted within one hundred (100) feet of the
designated wetlands areas or within 200' of the designated river without specific approval granted
by the Conservation Commission.
DONALD E. ASHE, REGISTER
HAMPDEN COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS
• • Bk 17746 P9290 .24464
04-17-2009 a 03a26p
QUrrCLAIM DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS lhat BLUE SKY BUILDERS, LLC. DJBIA BURNS
BUILDERS, a ConnecticUt Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business at 10
Roiling Green, East Granby, Connecticut
For consideration paid and in COI1$ideration of LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED ($100.00)
DOlLARS
granttoASPENWOODASSOCIATES,LLCof P.O. Box 270, Bast Granby, Connecticut
with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS
Certain real estate situated in Agawam, Hampden County. Massachusetts known and numbered
es 0 Silver Street, as more particularly bounded and described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
BEING the same premises conveyed to the Grantor herein by deed of James A. Paroline. Jr. et ux
dated Jarwary 1B, 2006 and recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 15642,
Page 533.
EXECUTED AS A SEALED INSTRUMENT THIS 15" DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
Hampden, ss.
BLUE SKY BUILDERS
D1B1A BURRS BUILDERS
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
On this 15" day of January, 2009, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally
appeared J. KIRK MACNAUGHTON, proved to me through satISfactory evidence of
identification, which was personal knowtedge, to be the person whose name Is signed on the
preceding or attached doc:ument and acknowledged I<l me that he sig . lunlarily for its
stated purpose as Manager of Blue Sky Builders LLC, d a Bums Build .
Coma L , Not2y Public
My commission expires: 11127109
• •
L--
'., ffi ., .
",
•
Tal'lln:d #; 1J06.01__ )
TIIia D06', ... ,. .... ed by: )
l'DIICes Carii.o )
181 OopRyDr .• PlJrtOmnp,FI., 32127 )
A1Irz ROOOidi"S RdurD 10: )
1'rIaK:ea CamIo f ( )
18100prayDr~PIJrt()nmse,Pl 32127 \~ ~
) ......
•
Bk 17802 Ps126 .32896
05-22-2009 a 03=15p
Q1JITCLAIMDUD
KNOW ALL MEN BY 'l1IIIIE l'RUENTS l1IAT: .
On May 7th, 2009. 0IIItiD c.u.o. aad IpCIIIIe, FnmI:a Oauso, of181 Oopray bi..:, Part
()raa!c, Fl. 32127. (colIeeIiveIy1be "OmaIor"), _ aad in .... · .... ,k-of1be 111m of$10.00, 1be
receipt of'Wbich ill baeby 8CkDowIedpd. does bInby t'eIIUe, rdeaoe aad ".j .. "'jii! 10 Gustin
Carueo, nmried, of181 o.prey Driw, Part Onmp, PI. 32127, 8mb. WbiIma, -Ic:d. 0(20
SedpfieJd Palla s~ Palm Coal, PI. 32164, aad CyntbIa Rlmck, umrIc:d, of908 Main St., T abo!and
PI. 33813. (oo&ctiYdy1be "G!m1IIe").111 ol1belblklwiDs IBDdII md pwpeIty, illp'l ... With III
iD4BoitiiWdlllOCllled u...-in 1bc Coaaty olIIeu_""". CommuuweallhofM -.. ......
A paceI of Iaad IiIDded eIIIkdy ftom Sliver Street II a point _1bc DICe 1nCk maiD.
eullaace md bouMed e.IaIy by ChriIc:oIa, UIth by !aDd fo" .. dy of ODe c:m. aad
~ by 1beApwem Ra:iDs &: BleediDa .• ..... ation COIIIIIjn 1IINnat-n-acres.
bO::l,<,~ f\l1e\'\ue I I\-qawt:lm, I'I\qo;s"lCku ~ .. 'tt.S.
Prior IDlllii1DCi& RdW ....... ; BOok l7o~3. Pqe S56. DOculll .... No. 95984, or1be ReconIar
orR ....... 0Iuaty, M b IlL
Tbe IIbow ,Mouj"" are 8Ul!ject1o III ........ risI&of..-y. jWIt>CIiw wveoaullllDl
miIIrnI I_¥IItIoas or record, if lIlY.
TO HA VB.AND TO ROlD1be poputylJlllo 1be ar-and the OnmIIee's heiIM and
-... ...... with 111..,.,... ...... ,. beL"Wi .. a 1bc jWpCity.
will be paid by the c .........
Bk 11802 Pq121 .32896 • •
IN WJ1'NESS WHJ'JIUW IIIe a.-...... ,"'"" IIIiI qaiIcIaim deo4 anllle day ODd ~ lint
IIhow wriIIIm.
Gnmtor Admowledgemeat
STArE OF FLORIDA . ,
COUN'IY OF ~£ll ('{zta
The beaol&& iaaIrumIlat _1ICImmrIeCIPCl befiJao _lbW .:$";& -¢tlJ'f by 0usIiD = ......... FnIDces Can&to. of781 0Iprcy Drive. Port ClnIJse, F132127 who_
C k-W~C,bne~:~/7-/ aidantificatioa
NotBryl'tlblie Sipal1ft: Vilkv..J~ ifiliJ
~PubIicN_ VlturitL L KiNg.,
Serial Numba:'DD 797813
My"-.. ,,iwiooClpires: '7 -f)./-WtJ.
SendbIXs'a1 lW01O:
ASHE REGISl'CR H~O'fum REt.isTRV OF nEEDS
•
A TRUE PHO ro:C·!"{ :-,3 R:;:GQR~ED 'N
HAMPDHiI.Ah,nV !\ECi3TRY OF DEEDS
AND IT IS SO CWTlflED
BOOK {7!1Cz. PAGE /t(.
ATIEST:
!/-J/~~
e ·
-------eawaRi 'PI'annlng Boa.I-------"-
STATEMENT OF INTERES~
Date (0 \ \ \ \ \ \ I
~he petitioner hereb7 certltles that he is the owner
ot all lands contained witbin the description ot the
subject petition. Agawam Planning Board Case HO. _______ •
~t,~
(lfame)
. /J-CPt?/t(V"e Itv~cvVE'
(Address),
. ,4b-fl'w'Ptr"l ,Me 0 )l)o J ,
'.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSB'l'TS
HAMFDElf ss Date (q /1) II \
~here personal17 appeared betore me. on the above date.
$a'lYloQd £, J) .Qsros'w cs to .. known to be tbe person
described In and who executed the toregoing docuaent.
/0 !91Q!a()('x lfotal"J' Public
K1 commission expire. e n KRISTEN BASTOW
. ;" Notary Public
, . Commonwealih of Massachusetts
_ MV Commission Exp, 10/20/17
)
)
• •
...---------Agawam Planning Board -----------.
STATEMEN'l' OF IN'l'EREST
Date 4? 13'/; I
The pet1tioner nereby certifies that he is toe owner
or all lands contained within the description or 'the
subject petition. Agawam Planning Board Case NO. ____ o
SA ILl'l-l-+ tu h r~ a f)
(Name)
22. Se.J'je+\eJJ -rct~ ~
( Address) ,
13 l W\ Coa.S-+ r:-I 3 d. I (" L(
J
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAMPDEN S8 Date ljl \ ~ l!
There personall~ appeared before me, on toe above date,
...;5::::::c."y;::::::..",0-:=y,~_V=>.:::...;..:~..::::!.d..l..!.:!V\C,.~,a..::h:l-_ to me known to be ' tile person
described in and who executed tile foregoing document.
Ask about our low rate
Auto and Home Loansl
MY commission expires ,~~~, UNDSEY F: Hum !'i~"\ Con)mission # DO 965690 ~ , Expires February 25, 2014
,oIIf" .. -IbWdl1hTro,FIin ........ IJOO.JI5-1Vtt
,06/03(201113:50 (PAX) '. P,OOl/001
Board-----------------,
)
Date
The petl I tOller! b.ereby lrles that he is tile owner
ot all I 1ned the deserlpUon ot tile
.subject ' . PlannlngBoar'd Calle NO., ___ •
ell )
2o.? W~~·~
) afdd~ vt 338 ~
J
CQJMM()NWEAlr.T~ OF MASSACHUSET'l'S
Date
aPJl',4lIjal["4lId bel"oreme. on tile above' date,
......::.....:{.:...:.!.!..:.....:..:...!....~_"-'-">.;;:fI...:...J,.;:::.:L;:,...; -me known to be' tile pB raon
tile rQrego~ document.
M1 col)lm,ll
)
)
• •• r---------Agaw ... 'Planning Board--------......,
STA'fEMBRf OF IH'l'BRES'l'
'fbe pet! tloner bereb1 certifle. tbat he 1a tb8 01fUI"
of all lands contained "ittlln the description ot tb8
subject petltion. qa,,_ Planning Board Ca.e rro., ___ •
COMMOWEAL'fB OP MASSACBmB'.rTS
BAMPDBIf sa
'!'here personall,. appeared before _. on tbe &boYe date.
GXIS7/11/ II t!arttSb to _ Jmown to betbe person
described in and who executed tbe foregoias doou.ent.
l
• I . ' •
..--------Agawam 'Pfannlng Board-----------.
)
)
~ . J •
STATEMEN'l' OF IN'l'EREST
The petitioner hereby certities that he is the owaer
or all lands contained wit bin the description ot the
subject petition. Agawam Planning Board Case NO. ___ •
(Address).
/ih-Jl 6'1I1trl1 C7 ~/~ 2'"
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
. IWtPDEN as
(1 (2.ALN ~ '1 . .:: T
Date to -J'/ -20/1
There personally appeared betore me. on the above date.
'j k ,(tt-HltcN /W?~~u,.J to 1118 Jmown to be the person
described in and who executed the toregoing document.
MAUREEN G. SUWVAN
JVOTARY PUBUC
MY COMMISSIoN EXPIRES SEP. 30, 2014
--------------,-MJ commission expires
• •
Environmental Study
Existing Conditions: Presently, the site containing approximately 23.3 acres, located on the
easterly sideline of Silver Street and the southerly sideline of Doane Avenue is entirely wooded.
80% of the site abutting Silver Street is mixed hardwoods with the remaining 20% being
hardwoods and conifers. Both Silver Street and Doane A venue have municipal sewer, water,
electric, telephone and cable t.v. SCS soil maps indicate the property to contain Merrimac soils.
Town topographic maps indicate all grades to run from northerly portion of the site in a southerly
direction.
Prooosed Development: This proposal shows the development of a street to run from Silver
Street to Doane Avenue and a cul-de-sac at the northeast comer of the site. All lots meet or
exceed minimum dimensions required in the residence A-I & Industrial B Zones. Municipal
water, sewer, electric, telephone and cable T.V. will be utilized for the project. The proposed
storm drain system will be designed to collect the run-off through catch basins and drainage
manholes, which will flow into detention basin and overflow in the southerly portion of the
property. No historic structures nor archaeological important areas are apparent on the site.
Conclusions: This proposal should create no adverse affects on the neighborhood or the
environment, and will allow the owner to develop home sites.
l
Important:
When filling out
forms on the
computer, use
only the tab
key to move
your cursor -
do not use the
return key.
MassaChuseu!tepartment of Environmental pro!tion
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands
WPA Form 2 -Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
A. General Information
From:
Agawam
Conservation Commission
To: Applicant Property Owner (if different from applicant):
Aspenwood Associates LLC
Name
P.O. Box 270
Mailing Address
East Granby
CityfTown
CT
State
Name
Mailing Address
06026
Zip Code Cityrrown State
1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents:
Zip Code
Plan for Conservation, Agawam, Massachusetts November, 2010, ""T~itle==-==::"":":=====C====="------------revised 5-12-11
for: Aspenwood Associates, LLC
Title Date
Title Date
2. Date Request Filed:
May 5, 2011
B. Determination
Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your
Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the folic wing
Determination.
Project Description (if applicable):
n/a
Project Location:
Silver Street
Street Address
H6
Assessors Map/Plat Number
Agawam
CityfTown
1/21
ParcellLot Number
v.paf0rm2.doc· rev. 12115/00 Page1of5
wpaform2.doc· re". 12115/00
MassaChusetts4Repartment of Environmental prolion
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands
WPA Form 2 -Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
B. Determination (cont.)
The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the
Wetlands Protection Act and regulations:
Positive Determination
Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of
Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent) has been
received from the issuing authority (i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of
Environmental Protection).
o 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s) is an area subject to protection under the Act.
Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.
1:23 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced
plan(s) are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confinmed in this
Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its
regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Detenmination is valid.
Bordering Vegetated Wetland
o 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination,
regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or
to the Request for Determination.
o 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to
protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work
requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.
D 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will
alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a
Notice of Intent.
o 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review
and approval by:
Name of Municipality
Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw:
Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation
Page20fS
wpaform2.doc·rev. 12/15/00
MassaChuseAepartment of Environmental pr_tion
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands
WPA Form 2 -Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
B. Determination (cont.)
D 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not
subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act:
D 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s)
and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant
must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more
information about the scope of alternatives requirements):
D Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located.
D Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any
adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner.
o Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided
parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within
the municipality.
D Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate
region of the state.
Negative Determination
Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the
Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed
on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the
request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed
at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission.
Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document.
D 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the
Buffer Zone.
D 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will
not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a
Notice of Intent.
D 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but
will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require
the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any).
D 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act
(including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent,
unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act.
Page 3 of5
•
MassaChuseaepartment of Environmental prcltion
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands
WPA Form 2 -Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
B, Determination (cont.)
o 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work
described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and
the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required:
Exempt Activity (site applicable statuatocy/regulatory provisions)
o 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by:
Name of Municipality
Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw.
Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation
C. Authorization
This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows:
o by hand delivery on 9 by certified mail, return receipt requested on
May 13, 2011
Date Date
This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for
Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not
relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances,
bylaws, or' regulations.
This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent
to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see Appendix A) and the property owner (if different from the
applicant). oOSignatures:
May 12, 2011
Date
wpalorm2.doc· rfN.12115JOO P<lge4ofS
•
TOWN OF AGAWAM
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Urbinati
cc: ZBA
From: Kristen Sopet
Date: August 26, 2010
Subject: MacNaughton Silver Street Frontage issue
Dear Nick:
•
This is a follow-up to our conversation on August 13 , 20 I 0, regarding the Silver Street
property owned by Mr. MacNaughton. I spoke with the Solicitor regarding your interpretation of
the frontage laws as applied to the current split lot situation on Silver Street. I have also
conducted a significant amount of research regarding this matter. Below, you will find an
analysis of the issues that we discussed and a conclusion, which suggests a course of conduct.
I. Quantitative Frontage
As we discussed, frontage generally has two components: quantitative frontage, which is
the linear distance of the lot along a roadway; and qualitative frontage, which requires practical
access to the building site for fire, police, and emergency vehicles. See Gifford v. Planning
Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 , 808 (I 978)(citing Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446
(1949».
From my understanding of our conversation, you believe that no quantitative (linear)
frontage exists for the industrial portion of this lot. This is because you consider frontage of this
property to be "residential frontage," inapplicable to the industrially zoned portion of the plot,
because the portion of the land abutting the street is zoned residential. Based on your many
years of experience, you believe that applying this frontage to the industrial portion of the
property would be an "industrial use." As such, the proposed application of frontage would be
invalid because it is well settled that, barring extraordinary circumstances, a landowner may not
utilize residential land for industrial uses. See Section II.
Whether quantitative frontage can be considered a "use" appears to be an unsettled area
of the law. As of yet, I have been unable to locate any concrete statutory or case law support for
your interpretation; however, no sources appear to support the contrary position. Additionally,
whether the quantitative frontage of a split-zoned parcel is to be determined individually for each
portion of a parcel with a different zoning designation has likewise not been directly addressed
by the courts, the legislature, or the Town Code.
However, there are many examples in Agawam of split-zoned parcels in which the lot has
been divided such that the rear portion of the lot is zoned for uses that are not allowed in the
front portion of the lot, which abuts a public way. In a handful of these lots, buildings have been
constructed on the rear portion which does not abut the public way. But for quantitative frontage
provided by the front portion, insufficient frontage would exist to enable the construction of that
• •
building. In other cases, the lots have been split such that two or more zoning districts within
one parcel abut the street. These observations have been made utilizing the most recent building
zone map. It is possible that variances have been issued for these properties, allowing for a
deviation from the zoning code.
Some examples include: parcels along North West Street, Feeding Hills Road, Route 182
and Meadow Street, in which the only frontage for the parcel is provided by Residence A-2 land,
but buildings have been constructed on the portion of the plot zoned for Agricultural uses; and
lower Main Street, near the Suffield, CT, border, in which the only frontage for certain lots is
provided on the portion of the plots zoned for Business B land, while buildings or portions
thereof have been constructed on sections of the plots that are zoned Industrial A, which do not
abut a public way.
II. Qualitative Frontage
Regardless of whether linear frontage is considered a use, qualitative frontage would
most likely be considered a use because its primary purpose is access. See Dupont v. Town of
Dracut 41 Mass.App.Ct. 293, 294 (1996)(noting that access and parking are considered
accessory uses). However, it is highly likely that Mr. MacNaughton would have legal support for
a variance that would allow him to utilize the residential portion of his land for access to the
back-set industrial portion of his parcel.
While it is generally true that the "[ u ]se of land in one zoning district for an access road
to another zoning district is prohibited where the road would provide access to uses that would
themselves be barred if they had been located in the first zoning district," Beale v. Planning Bd
of Rockland, 423 Mass. 690,694 (1996), case law suggests that this rule should be leniently
applied where application would result in a deprivation of lawful use of the land. Such is the
case particularly when all access to the land would be barred. See Richard v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375, 375 (I 968)(holding that an access road through a
single-family-zoned district to a parking lot in a multifamily district may not be utilized, but
noting that the erected apartment building had access to the parking lot via a public road so that
the access road was not necessary); Lapenas v. Zoning Bd of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass.
530, 531, 533 (1967)(fInding that where the only means of access to a commercially zoned
portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the same plot that was zoned for
residential purposes, the land owner was entitled to relief from the literal reading of a by-law that
would disallow use of the access road because to hold otherwise would deprive the owner of
lawful use of the property); Town of Chelmsford v. Byrne, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (I 978)(holding
that use of a dirt road would be permissible where it was the only means of access to industrially
zoned land even though it crossed through a residential district, if prohibiting use of the dirt road
would "bar any access to the ... land for lawful use"); Building Inspector of Dennis v. Harney, 2
Mass. App. Ct. 584, 585, 587 (l974)(disallowing use by a business of an access road that
traversed a residential district but noting that the access road was merely "an additional means of
access to ... [the] business").
As you acknowledged during our conversation, all access to the industrial portion of Mr.
MacNaughton's land would be barred should he be denied the right to utilize the frontage
provided by the residential portion of his parcel. In fact, this case is very similar to Lapenas v.
Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530, 531, 533 (1967), in which the only means of
• •
access to a commercially zoned portion of a plot was an access road that crossed a section of the
same plot, which was zoned for residential purposes. In that case, the land owner applied for and
was denied a variance which would allow access through the residential land for a business. The
landowner appealed the denial and the court found in her favor because to deny the variance
allowing access would otherwise deprive the owner of lawful use of the property for which it
was zoned.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
It would appear that Mr. MacNaughton cannot, as a right, utilize the residential portion of
his land to access the industrial portion of this land, which is otherwise "landlocked." He does,
however, have the option of applying for a variance. Due to the similarity of this case to
Lapenas, he should be able to establish the hardship requirement. Note, though, that it is
unlikely that Mr. MacNaughton would be required to construct a public road to obtain frontage.
Utilizing an easement on his neighbor's property would not likely solve his issues of
access and frontage. However, should Mr. MacNaughton wish to utilize a shared driveway in
addition to obtaining access across the residential portion of his property, no case law or
statutory provisions appear to prohibit such an arrangement. Easements between citizens are
generally private matters and the Town would have little basis to interfere.
-ExECUTIVE
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITIES &
DEVELOPMENT
" :\h~el ~t~)oUn~ak~~c~~:~mor
•
ACCESS ROADWAYS
Vo l. 2, Edition No.9
November, 1985
Basically, once an area ha s been zoned for certain puri'os~s , Uilly
those uses which are specifically allowed are permitted within the loning
district. A zoning bylaw need not be both permissive and prohibitive in
form. It is a familiar principle when interpreting zon ing bylaws that
express mention of one matter excludes by implication other similar
matters not mentioned. If a zoning bylaw enume rates certain permitted
uses but contains no express prohibition or restriction as to other uses
then uses which are not specifically authorized in a zon ing district as
being per~itted are deemed to be prohibited.
When zoning regulations are imposed which vary from onE district to
ano ther, the result i s the application of different restrictions to abut -
ting lands. In ttlany instances, zoni ng district bound ary lines fo llow
topographical features or public improvements such as rivers, highways,
or streets .. However, in some in stances, a zoning district boundary line
sp lits a lot so as to leave part of a lot subject to one set of restric-
tions, and the other part of the lot subject to a different set of restri c-
tions. In such situations, the ava ilability of access, or the ability to
cons truc t an access roadway, bec omes a major issue when the bylaw does not
express ly authori ze the use.
Thi s issue first came to light when in 1954 the town of Braintree
ame nded its zoning map by changing a large parcel of lan d frottl a resi-
den t ial di sU"ict to an i ndustt"i al dist,"ict. The ,"e Lolli ny resulLed in
crea ting an industrial distt"ict whkh was entirely surrounded by residen-
tial zoning districts. Textron Industries purchased a tract of l and
in which the major portion was located in the indu strial district and
cons tructed a factory. Textron also constructed roadways for access to
the factory built in the indu strial zone; however, the access roadways
passed through residential zoning districts. Tredwe ll Harri son, an
abutter, sought enforcement action as to the construction of the access
roadways and requested their relocation. Textron argued that the access
over the residential l and was necessarily implicit in a loning scheme
which completely surrounds an industrial area with res identially zoned
lan d and pointed out that without access across the residentially zoned
land, the industrially zoned land could not be used for the purposes
i"t,"d~rl di,tei, . ~ ~ ~ ~.
Donald J. Schmidt, Editor
100 Cambridge Street, Room 904
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
617 /727 -3197
1/800/392-6445
• •
The court found that since the residential zone did not expressly
authorize industrial use, then the use of the land in the residential
zone as an access roadway for an industrial use violated the requirements of
a residential zo ne. The court did not rule on Textron's .claim that the
1954 amendment was an unre as onable classification of the industrial l and
without the necessary access as there was no statutory basis for modifying
the requirements of the residential zone so as to make reasonable the
classification of the industrial zone.
The court noted that if the 1954 amendment was invalid becau se of
unreasonable classification , it would appear that the re sidential land ,
as well as the industrial land, would remain residential.. In de ciding
aga inst Te xtron, the court delayed any order for compliance with the
zoning bylaw so as to allow the town of Braintree an opportunity to deter-
mine whether to provide lega l access to the land in the industrial zon e.
See .H...arr.is-.9.!1_\l.. Building In s~0!~~Brain_tree_, 350 Mass. 559 (1966).
The town of Braintree undertook to rectify the problem of the inac-
cessibility of the industrial land and ame nded its zoning bylaw by adding
to permitted ·uses in a residential district the following:
Access or egress ways, p~bli c or private, to or from land in
any other district; subject to approval by the Board of
Appeals, however, on such ways established after the adop-
tion of this amendment.
The intent of the zoning amendment was to validate all exi sting
acc ess roadways which were in violation of the loning bylaw prior to the
adoption of the amendment and require all new access roadways to obtain
a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Harri son challenged the validity of the zoning amendment, and the
Land Court ru led that the zoning amendment was invalid. On appeal, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judi cial Court found that bylaw provision
authorizing the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special permit for
the use of residentially zoned land for access to land located in another
zoning district was valid. However, the court affirmed the Land Court
judge's decision that the amendment, inso far as it purported to validate
existing ac(ess roadways, was invalid as it was arbitrary and di scrimi-
natory in its effect on Harrison's land. However, the court pointed
out va r i ous ways in which the Town could rectify the access problem.
Excerpts:
Wh it temore, J.
HARRI SO N V. BRAINTREE
355 Mass. 651 (1969)
We ass ume that it would not violate the requirement of
uniforrnity for the town to zone for access use resi-
dential parcels, already in such use, but to provide
that parcels not in such use may thereafter be sub-
jected to ~ccess use only with board of appeals
approval . The town could deterliline as to each such
existillg access parcel, judging in its su rroundings
-2-.
J
• •
as they existed before illegal use began and applying
appropriate criteria, that access use wa s reasonable.
Here, however, there is no suggestion that the town
made any such determination. On the contrary, the
wording of the amendment and the planning board
report indicate that the rezoning was made as to
those parcels because the access use over them existed.
The presumption of the validity of legislative action
does not enfold within the town's vote all the deter-
minations that might hav e been made but which it is
reasonably to be concluded from the vote and the
record were not made. There has therefore been un-
equal treatment of residential areas near parcels in
illegal use in 1966, on the one hand, and areas not
nea r su ch pa rce 1 s , on the other hand. We ru Ie, mOre-
over, that the use for industrial access to the ex tent
found by the judge of strips of residentially zoned
land on both sides of the petitioners' property is
unreasonable as a matter of law.
The town is not in a straitjacket. It may layout
public ways, it may extend its industrial or bu si-
ness areas to public way s if such areas are reasonably
laid out in relation to adjacent or nearby residential
areas. It may, as we have indicated, allow access use
of particular lots, suitable for such use, by specific
vote or with consent of the board of appeals.
The issue of the Textron access roadways would be considered in yet
another court case. Eventually, however, the prOblem would be solved
when the town accepted the access ways as town ways. See Harri so n v.
Textron, Inc., 367 Mass . 540 (1975).
Since the first Harrison decision, there have been other cases which
have looked at the issue of access roadways and their relationship to
loca l l Ollill'l. Hi<:hardson v. Zoninu Board (If lip 1''' , lis of I ,·alllinyh,lIli. J~I
Md ss. 370 (1%6), dealt wit.h an access way for d forty-fuur unit afJdrt-
Illent house. The access roadway was located on land zoned for single
fa mily. An apartment house was not 1 isted as aperlllitted use in a
single family zone. The Zoning Board had determined that the implied
intent of the zoning bylaw was to al10w access roadways in single family
zones. The court overturned the board's decision reasoning that access
roadways should be expressly dealt with in the bylaw. The court also
noted that other access wa s available to the apartment building.
In Building Inspector of Dennis v. Harney, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 584
(1974), the court found that the use of land lying within a residential
zone as an acce ss roadway for a commercial use located in an unre stricted
zone was not authorized by the bylaw. As was the case in Richardson,
other access was available to the pr6perty.
Sometimes a tract of land will be divided by a municipal boundary
so that the land ·will be · subject to different zoning regul ation s on each
s ide of th e Iliuni c i~dl boundary line . I()!i.n_2iCh~.!lIIsford '0_.IJy.!'.n~-,
-3-
• •
6 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (1978) involved access to property located in the
city of lowell and zoned for indu stry by mean s of an acces s road \.,hich
was located in a re~idential zone in the town of Chelmsford. [he court
held that the principle established in the first Harrison case that an
owner of land in an industrial di stri ct may not uselotSof land in an
adjacent residential zone as ac cess roadways for its indistrial use i s
also controlling when districts zoned for different uses lie in dif-
ferent municipalities. However, the access roadway was the only mean s
of access to the industrial land. The court rellianded the case to tht'
Superior COUI't for a deterill inati on as to whether the effect of the
Chelmsford bylaw was to bar any access to the land located in lowell for·
a 1 awful use.
l~penas~ Zoning Board of Appeals of Brockton, 352 Mass. 530
(1967), also shows the con ce rn of the co urt as to the availability of
access to a split lot when it noted that to construe a bylaw soas to
bar any access to land for a lawful us e would be arbitrary and invalid.
In lapenas, the court faced a situation where a tract of land consisting
of a strip from 14-23 feet wide was located in an area of the city of
Brockton which was zoned residential, and the remainder of the parcel
was located in the town of Abington and toned for business. The on ly
access to the business portion of the land wa s through the residentially
zoned strip located in Brockton.
lapenas ·sou ght a variance under the Brockton ordinance for access to
a ·gasoline station for which the building inspector of Abington had
issued a permit. The variance was deni ed by the Zoning Board of Appeal s .
The court held that the Zoning Board of Appeals' interpretation of the
Brockton ordinance was in error and could not be construed as prohibiting
access to the land located in Abington. Even though a variance was not
considered necessary, the court found that since the land in the resi-
dential zo ne was too narrow to be useable for any permitted purpose,
and the commercially zoned land in Abington was without other access,
lapenas was entitled to relief from the literal operation of the Brockton
zoning ordinance.
Excerpts:
lAPENAS V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL OF BROCKTON
352 Mass. 530 (1967)
Wh it telllol'e , J. . ..
We recognize that the Abington business area is not part
of the Brockton zoning scheme and that, consi s tently with
that schellle, the cla~sification of the plaintiffs' land
nlight have been for other than business use. Reasonable
access roadways over the Brockton strip Will, however,
leave the residential area across North Quincy 'Street
protected by an area free of buildings. We think that
Brockton's zoning interests support no more than thi s.
In the
re 1 i e f
nance.
so ught
circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to
from the literal operation of the zoning ordi-
In the absence of variances, this might be .
in proceedings und er G.L. c . 231A.
-4-
SUM~IARY :
In the cases at bar. however. the plaintiffs so ught var'i-
ances, Although, as it turns out, the plaintiffs' rights
of 'access ' do not depend on variances, it is not inappro-
priate that the apparent conflict between the imperative
need of access to abutting land, zoned for business, and
the Brockton ordinance be removed of record in variance
proceedings. The plaintiffs do not seek to exempt their
Brockton parcels from all residential district restric-
tions.
A zoning bylaw which is cOllipr'ehensive in nature in that it lists
uses which are permitted by right or by special permit, but contains
no expressed authorization or prohibition of other uSes, effectively
prohibits such uses. In other words, a use is not permitted unless
expressly dealt with in the bylaw. Building Inspectors and Zoning
Boards of Appeals should not assume that a use is permitted by impli-
cation when interpreting local zoning bylaws,
The use of land in one zoning district as an access roadway to
another zoning district is not permitted unless authorized by the
zoning bylaw. Providing for such uses by special permit can avoid
future problems. [n cases where a split lot has no av.ailable access ,
the reasonableness of the zoning classification will come under question,
Zoning is an ongOing process. COlllmunities, through their Planning
Board, should review zoning regulations on a continuous basis to assure
clarity as well as reasonable zoning classifications. The story of
Tredwell Harrison and access roadways is a good exa mple of the need for
continual review of zoning regulations.
Harri son v, Textron, Inc., 367 Mass. 540 (1975) di scussed two issues
relative ·to the creation of a public way. The court found that the
establishment of a public way would not be held invalid merely because
a nearby landowner would be adversely affected by the use of way. The
question of whether or not the use of a public way must conform to
zoning was also addressed and the court noted that although a munici-
pality is subject to its own loning regulations, a public way which is
laid out by a municipality is not governed by the use restrictions con-
tained in the local zoning bylaw.
There are other circumstances in which a lot Inay lack frontage or
fail to have adequate access which have not been addressed. We must
stress that this edition of the Land Use Manager has only reviewed the
rather limited issue as to the use of land for access roadways and the
availability of access when a lot has been split by a loning di s trict
or Illunicipal boundary line.
-5-
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive 'Qffice of Communities
and Deve 1.opment
Division of Municipal Development
100 Cambridge Street -Room 904
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
", '~<""
Agawam Planning Board
August 18,2011
Page 1
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Travis P. Ward
Violet E. Baldwin
David A. Chase
Mark R. Paleologopoulos
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michael J. Morassi
ALSO PRESENT:
Deborah S. Dachos
Pamela R. Kerr
AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD
August 18,2011
Mr. Ward called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -July 21, 2011
Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Chase to approve the minutes of
July 21, 2011 as written.
VOTE 3-0-1 (Baldwin abstained)
2. BOND STATUS -Robin Ridge Estates -Banville/Toomey LLC
John Toomey of Banville/Toomey LLC was in attendance this evening to go over the
Engineering Department's punch list dated July 21, 2011. At the last meeting the Board
had extended this Performance Agreement to September 15, 2011 and asked that the
developer provide a written timeline for completion of the punch list items for this
meeting. The Engineering Department submitted a memo dated August 18,2011 with a
bond amount and itemized punch list with individual dollar amounts which total
$165,000. Mr. Toomey explained that due to economics he and his partner have not done
work on the subdivision since they sold the lots but intend to complete it beginning this
Fall. Mr. Ward stated that while there are some major items (sidewalks, top coat. .. ) there
are also some smaller items that they could address soon. He went on to say that he
recently visited the subdivision and observed the two abutting residences on the original
Robin Ridge Drive have issues with their sidewalks and driveways or lack thereof. The
Board has also received letters from these two abutters regarding the uncompleted work.
Mr. Toomey stated that they are now planning to complete the work on the subdivision
themselves to save money but that they each have full time jobs as well. Mr. Ward asked
if he had prepared the written time line as requested. Mr. Toomey stated that they have
no schedule as of yet but plan to start up again in September with completing the
sidewalks and placing fill and loam and seeding. Mr. Ward asked him to prepare a
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 20 II
Page 2
written timeline for the next meeting which is in two weeks. Mr. Toomey then stated that
there is a question with installing the sidewalk on the raised ranch that abuts this
subdivision and the driveway may have to be cut and pitched. Ms. Dachos then reiterated
that the Board requested a written time line for the last meeting which was canceled.
They therefore had a full month to provide the information. She stated that the Board has
received letters from the two abutting homeowners to the subdivision. She went on to
say that these residences are not even part of the project and have been dealing with
uncompleted sidewalks for two years. In closing, she stated that this subdivision was
approved in 2008, all lots have been sold and the $165,000 bond was posted in 2009.
Since then it appears no work has been done and with damages and inflation, the bond
may not be adequate to cover the outstanding work. She also stated that the Board has
the ability to secure a subdivision bond to complete the work and has done so in the past.
Mr. Paleologopoulos asked where the fill is located that is referenced in the Engineering
Department memo. Mr. Toomey stated that it is piled on a homeowners lot and that they
sold some of it and kept some to use for fill on the shoulders. Mr. Paleologopoulos then
questioned the sidewalk issue that was pointed out by the Engineering Department. Mr.
Toomey stated that the Engineering Department inspected the sidewalk locations and
found some discrepancies -some are close to the property bounds but not over them.
Mr. Ward then asked if he agreed to replace the abutter's driveway. Mr. Toomey stated
yes they agreed to that. Trisha Green was in attendance, she is the owner of 140 Robin
Ridge Drive, a direct abutter to the subdivision. She asked if she attends the next meeting
if she will get answers to her questions regarding when her sidewalk and driveway will
be completed. Mr. Ward stated yes. Mr. Toomey submitted a letter asking for an
extension of their Performance Agreement to October 6, 20 II.
Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Chase to extend the Performance
Agreement for Robin Ridge Estates to October 6,2011 and to require the developer's
attendance at their September 1st meeting at which they shall have a written time line for
completion of the punch list items.
VOTE 4-0
3. BOND STATUS -Alice Lane -Cecelia Estates -Alice Lane Realty
Steve Cincotta of Alice Lane Realty was in attendance this evening. The Planning Board
received a memo today from the Engineering Department regarding the repair of
sidewalks on Alice Lane. At the last meeting, the Board agreed to allow the developer to
repair the cracks with cement filler if that was acceptable by the Engineering Department.
Since that work was done, the Town has received further complaints from the abutter on
the corner of Alice Lane and School Street. Engineering has inspected and found that the
repair work is not adequate and that panels need to be replaced. Ms. Baldwin stated that
replacement of damaged panels is typically how that has been dealt with. Mr. Cincotta
stated the sidewalks are two years old and that the filler he used is not blending in right
now. He went on to say that these sidewalks have endured eight seasons and there is
absolutely no heaving. Mr. Ward asked that Mr. Cincotta meet with the Engineering
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 3
Department and that the Board agrees that the panels need to be replaced if required by
Engineering. This Performance Agreement will expire September 17, 20 II.
Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Paleologopoulos to amend the
order of the agenda.
VOTE 4-0
6. FORM A -Meadow Street -Valenti
Marc Shute ofD.L. Bean, Inc. was in attendance to present this Form A which shows a
large tract of land on Meadow Street being divided into three lots. The property contains
three structures which are considered pre-existing non-conforming. The applicant has
purchased a small piece from the neighbor to provide the required frontage. Ms. Dachos
stated that she had hoped to have an answer from the Building Inspector prior to tonight
on whether the Planning Board should act on the Form A prior to the applicant going to
the Board of Appeals. She feels it makes more sense for them to get Board of Appeals
approval first. Mr. Valenti was in attendance and stated that the Building Inspector told
him to acquire the two additional feet from the neighbor to address the frontage issue.
Ms. Dachos stated that it is a matter of process and the Board really needs an opinion
from the Building Inspector. Mr. Valenti stated that he will request an extension of the
Form A so the Board can follow up with the Building Inspector prior to the next meeting.
Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Chase to extend the time for
action on the Valenti Form A on Meadow Street to September I, 20 II.
VOTE 4-0
4. SITE PLAN -new ride -Six Flags New England
John Furman of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin was in attendance to present this site plan as
well as Jason Freeman and Chuck Davis of Six Flags New England. Mr. Furman
explained that per the zoning bylaws, the abutters were notified of this project and he
submitted the green cards this evening. He stated that the ride is 191 '.67/16" high and
the work will take place outside of any resource areas on the site. He went on to say that
a defined project area was provided for analysis and consists of3.11 acres which
currently has 92,398 SF of impervious area. Post construction this area will have 81,028
SF of impervious area which, Mr. Furman stated, provides for an 11,000 SF reduction in
impervious area. Other work associated with this project include: remove the existing
Ship Wreck Falls ride, along with its ride mechanical systems, support structures,
concrete water tank and elevated entrance/exist platforms. Install a new ride (Giant
Inverted Boomerang) complete with new foundations, queuing lines, elevated exit
walkway, shade structures and support utilities. Creation of an outdoor eating area in the
vicinity of an existing food court area is also proposed. Minor rework of existing utilities
(drainage, water, sanitary sewer) to clear the project area of obstructions and allow for a
clear building pad is also proposed as well as the relocation of an entrance portal for the
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 4
existing Looney Toons area. Mr. Furman stated that there will also be a retaining wall to
create a 4' vertical difference between the finish grade and the elevation of the ride
foundations (must be kept visible for inspections. He stated that this retaining wall will
be 3.5' to 4' tall. He then went over the Engineering Department comments and stated
that they can be addressed. Ms. Baldwin asked ifthe height of the ride was measured
from ground level. Mr. Furman stated yes and that was brought up by the Building
Inspector at the Team Meeting. He has since provided a written description of the how
the height of the ride was calculated. A copy of that was also provided to the Board. Ms.
Dachos stated that she spoke with the Building Inspector and was informed that he is
satisfied with Mr. Furman's written response. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about the
water from the existing ride. Mr. Furman stated that it will be drained into the system
and the tank area will be filled with sand and gravel. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked what the
elevation of Main Street is in this area. Mr. Furman stated that the finished floor of the
maintenance building which is level with Main Street is at elevation 97 and the proposed
work area is at elevation 82. Mr. Ward then allowed for public input.
Edward Czelazewicz, 1720 Main Street stated that based on the existing typhoon water
ridge there is an excessive noise issue. He stated that he hired a sound engineer and filed
a court case and many violations were found. He went on to say that he may want the
Planning Board to review the Typhoon Water Ridge as he is very concerned with the
noise level. Mr. Ward explained that the Planning Board reviews projects within the
bylaws and regulations and that it appears he has a sound issue with Six Flags. He went
on to say that the Board deals only with the site itself. Mr. Czelazewicz stated that he has
been through the legal process and there appears to be consistent violations ofDEP's
policy on noise and it has been his past experience that the Planning Board can send this
issue to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Dachos stated that per the zoning bylaws, this area is
over 250' from the property line and therefore does not have to go to the Board of
Appeals, only site plan approval of the Planning Board is required. She went on to say
that the noise issue can be referred to the Police Department or DEP.
Motion was made by Mr. Chase and seconded by Mr. Paleologopoulos to approve the
Site Plan for the Giant Inverted Boomerang with the condition that the August 18,2011
Engineering Department comments be addressed.
VOTE 4-0
Mr. Ward asked that a copy ofthe demolition plan be provided to the Board for their
records. Mr. Furman agreed to that and indicated that they are planning to start
demolition for this project in late September.
5. PRELIMINARY PLAN -Aspenwoods Estates -Silver Street -MacNaughton
Marc Shute of D.L. Bean, Inc. was in attendance as well as the developer, Kirk
MacNaughton. Mr. Shute stated that the plan has not changed since the last meeting and
that they were awaiting the Town Solicitor's response to the Board's questions. He
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 5
stated that he submitted a list of waivers that include: waiving sidewalks on one side of
the new roadway; and to allow for deep hole observations rather than soil borings. Mr.
Ward asked what the elevation was from the rear of the Doane Avenue lots to the new
road. Mr. Shute stated that the maximum slope allowed under the Regulations is a 3: 1
slope and that the worst case would be the road being 2' lower than the existing grades.
He went on to say that they have requested a sidewalk waiver on the north side of the
new road. Ms. Baldwin brought up a comment made by Ms. Dachos at the last meeting
regarding the possibility of restricting the use on lot 9. Mr. Shute stated that while that lot
is large in size, the buildable area is small due topography and the presence of wetlands.
Ms. Dachos stated that the design ofthe new road is for a residential street which has two
industrial parcels at the end of the cul-de-sac. She went on to say that the Conservation
Commission can allow work within the 100' buffer to a wetland. She stated that an
office building would be more compatible with this area than heavy manufacturing. She
also stated that the Board would need more information on whether additional thickness
in pavement would be necessary. Mr. Shute stated that they do not know the proposed
uses of the industrial lots at this time. Mr. Ward stated that the road must be constructed
at the highest level for the potential highest use during the definitive design. Mr.
MacNaughton stated that he does not wish to have his options restricted in terms of uses
on the industrial lots. Ms. Baldwin then questioned the strip of land at the beginning of
the new road. Mr. MacNaughton stated that he is proposing a vegetated buffer with low
maintenance landscaping in this strip which will be the responsibility of the homeowners
association to maintain. Mr. Shute pointed out that there is another small 4' section at the
other end of the new road which will be maintained by the homeowners association as
well. Ms. Dachos stated that these areas should be planted as a mature buffer or maintain
the existing forest. Mr. Ward then asked Mr. Shute about the July 21, 20 II Engineering
Department comments. Mr. Shute stated that he has received them and will address
them. He explained that a sight distance study will be done for the new street. Mr.
Paleologopoulos stated that a sight distance study should be done on Doane Avenue as
well. Ms. Dachos stated that they can't require a sight distance study on Doane Avenue,
however, that will be taken into consideration when calculating the sight distance for the
new proposed street. Mr. MacNaughton stated that removing some trees on his back land
will help Doane Avenue sight distance. Mr. Shute stated that sight distance easements
could be obtained to allow Mr. MacNaughton to remove trees. He then briefly went over
the remainder of the Engineering Department comments: signage will be provided on the
connector street (one way/stop sign, "not a thru); the street name will be Aspenwoods
Lane Extension; catch basins at end of Doane Avenue will tie into the new drainage
system; the water line shall be looped with existing water line on Doane Avenue. Mr.
Ward then stated that the requested waivers will be voted on during the Definitive Plan
stage. He also referred to the Town Solicitor's opinion that lot I (shown on originally
submitted plan, now combined with lot 9 and is a 12.51 acre lot labeled as lot 8). Mr.
Chase commented on having residential lots and industrial lots on the same road, creating
a problem with industrial lots behind residences. Mr. MacNaughton explained that he
previously requested a zone change for all residential that the Planning Board supported
but that was ultimately denied by the Town Council. Mr. Ward then allowed for public
input.
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 6
Shirley Kibbe, 40 Doane Avenue pointed out that there will be heavy trucks driving
down a residential street. Mr. Ward stated that there will be signs restricting them from
using Doane Avenue. Mr. Chase asked if the connector street could be one-way. Mr.
Shute stated that could be done. Ms. Dachos stated that it is under the Planning Board
purview and that the connector could be just an emergency connector. Ms. Kibbe then
brought up the line of sight issue with the existing trees. Mr. Ward explained that Mr.
MacNaughton previously offered to remove some of the trees on his land to improve the
sight distance or work with the homeowners to obtain sight distance easements.
Jim Consolini, 191 Doane Avenue asked what the prices of the new homes would be.
Mr. MacNaughton stated that market depending, they would be in the $400,000 to
$450,000 range. Mr. Consolini asked if prospective buyers would be made aware of the
ihdustriallots on the street. Ms. Dachos stated that it behooves anybody to research the
abutting property when purchasing a home. Mr. Chase pointed out that most of the land
surrounding this area is industrial and that is evident when you drive around this area.
Mr. Consolini then pointed out that the Planning Board's vote on the previous zone
change request was 2-2 and not unanimous.
Stuart Kibbe, 40 Doane Avenue pointed out that there are currently three or four vacant
industrial buildings in this area.
Debby Griffith, 94 Doane Avenue asked about proposed sidewalks. Mr. Ward explained
that the Regulations call for sidewalks on both sides of a new roadway, however, the
developer is requesting that the sidewalks be waived on the Doane Avenue side of the
new roadway and this will be voted on during the Definitive Plan review.
Ricky Walker, III Doane Avenue asked what the width of the new road will be coming
in from Silver Street. Mr. Shute explained that it will have a 50 right of way and 24' of
pavement. Mr. Walker then asked what the width of the connector street will be. Mr.
Shute explained that it would be the same width as the roadway from Silver Street.
Alfred Pajer, 400 Cooper Street then asked who would maintain sidewalks on the Doane
Avenue side of the new road if they were installed. Mr. Shute stated it would be .
maintained by the homeowners association.
Mr. Consolini then asked if the pavement should be 30' wide. Ms. Dachos explained that
the "classification" of the new street will be determined at the Definitive Plan stage. Mr.
Ward pointed out that the Planning Board will want the highest classification design. Mr.
Walker then asked if the connector street should be 40'. Ms. Dachos stated that they are
proposing no industrial traffic going onto Doane A venue.
Richard Walker, Edgewater Road asked if the sight distance study would take the
connector street into consideration. Ms. Dachos explained that the sight distance study is
to determine the line of sight and not volume -that would be included in a traffic study.
•
Agawam Planning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 7
She went on to say that they are not proposing to add any new traffic to Doane Avenue,
however, the Doane A venue residents will be able to access the new street.
Motion was made by Mr. Paleologopouios and seconded by Mr. Chase to approve the
Preliminary Plan for Aspenwoods Estates with the condition that the July 21, 2011
Engineering Department comments be addressed and the Board shall receive copies of
the revised plan for signatures.
VOTE 4-0
6. PVPC UPDATES -D. Chase
Mr. Chase stated that there was nothing new to report.
7. CORRESPONDENCES -The Board received a copy of a memo sent to
Zymroz Landscaping on Silver Street regarding the need to remove all
obstructions from the drainage path to the detention pond.
8. DISCUSSION -Zoning
The members agreed to have Jessica Alllan of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
attend the Town Council's September 6th meeting to present her findings on the review of
the Zoning Bylaws. A copy of her report will be forwarded to the Town Council for their
review prior to that meeting.
9. BOND RELEASE -Lot 5 Wysteria Lane
The owner of lot 5 has submitted a letter stating that he does not wish to have the
developer provide him with shade trees as required. The last memo from the
Engineering Department stated that was the outstanding issue with this lot.
Motion was made by Mr. Paleologopoulos and seconded by Mr. Chase to release the full
bond ($3300) being held on Lot 5 Wysteria lane.
VOTE 4-0
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Agawam Planning Board
July 21 , 2011
Page 4
4. PRELIMINARY PLAN -Silver Street -Aspenwood Estates -McNaughton
Marc Shute of D.L. Bean, Inc. was in attendance this evening to present this Preliminary
Plan as well as the applicant, Kirk McNaughton. Mr. Shute explained that he has revised
this plan since the original submitted and provided copies to the Board this evening. He
slated that this is essentially a conceptual plan and no field work has been done with the
exception of having the wetland boundaries delineated and approved by the Conservation
Commission earlier this year. He explained that this is a 23.3. acre site and there are
three property owners involved. The property is split zoned with Residence AI and
Industrial B. The roadway proposed is classified as a "lane" with a 50' right of way and
30' of bituminous concrete. A sidewalk is shown on the south side of the street. There is
an approximate 200' connector at the end of Doane Avenue to the new road. The plan
shows a total of ten residential lots with average daily traffic of 100 cars/day. He stated
that this design will handle 400 cars/day. There is a 6' strip shown north of the north
side of the right of way and is larger on the connector street. He went on to say that the
new road will be lower than Doane Avenue and the 6' strip will allow for proper grading
away from Doane Avenue lots down to the street. The sewer will be gravity and will go
back to Silver Street. He explained that the revisions he has made to the plan include the
elimination of one of the two detention ponds that were shown and he combined two of
the larger lots into one 12.5 acre lot per the zoning officer. Mr. Ward pointed out that lot
9 is an industrial lot and access is shown from a residential street. Mr. Shute stated that
the zoning officer has approved that. Mr. Ward questioned if an average "lane" could
handle heavy industrial traffic. Ms. Dachos stated that lot could be used for an office
building and restrictions for the use on those industrial lots should be discussed. She
went on to say that she recommends the Board ask for the Town Solicitor's opinion on
whether you can access industrial property through a residential zone. Mr. McNaughton
stated that he would evaluate his options and that he already has an opinion on that issue
and this was designed around that. Ms. Dachos stated she is aware of that opinion,
however, it seemed to deal more with driveways than roads. Mr. Morassi broUght up the
strip that is shown at the entrance of the street and labeled to be maintained by the
homeowners association and stated that the Board has not had good luck with those
situations. He stated that any way to eliminate that strip would be helpful. Mr. Ward
stated that although the Board has recently approved a subdivision with a homeowners
association, the Board does not favor those. Mr. Chase asked if this design would work
in reverse. Ms. Dachos statcd no, you cannot access a more restrictive zone through a
less restrictive zone. Mr. Morassi asked how big the building envelopes would be. Mr.
Shute stated that there is a 35 ' setback required, the houses would be approximately 35'
and could be 70' to 80' long. Mr. Ward asked if a 300' offset would be needed with the
connector road. Mr. Shute stated that he could provide a 300' offset at the connector road
and still have the same number of lots. He stated that he has a plan with him this evening
that would accomplish that. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked why the connector street is being
provided. Mr. Shute stated that provides a second means of egress and that was brought
up at the Team Meeting on the project. He went on to say that Doane Avenue is
presently a 1500' deadend road and water line and that the leaching cells in that area have
LOCUS IAAP
I LOCUS
N.T.S.
/
I
PROPOSED CENTERL[NE GRADES
0-6.9' = 197.~'±( EDGE PAVE. SILVER STREET )
H.P.O 0 -3 -197.5'±
0+0 -197.2·±
1+0 R 196.1 '±
L.P.O 2+02 -195.3'±
2+0 ~ 195.3'±
H.P.III 3+0 = 195.8' ±
4+0 = 1 9S.0' ±
5+0 = 194.0'±
6+0 = 193.0'±
L.P.O 7+0 -192.3'±
8+0 -193.0' ±
H.P.@ 9+0 = 193.8'±
10+0 = 193.0'±
L.P.O 11+0 -192.3'±
12+0 -193.0'±
H.P. 10 14+90 = 195.7'±
13+0 = 194.0'±
14+0 = 19S.0·±
IS+0 -195.7'±
16+0 = 194.S'±
16+71.6 -193.4'± END PAVEMENT
0-12'
0+0 =
1+0 =
H.P. 10 1+98 =
PROPOSED CENTERl[NE GRADES
193.0'±( EDGE PAVE. DOANE AVENUE)
193.2'±
194.S'±
'9S.7'±
ii,
;r' ,~-----------DOANE AVENUE I' , -~
EXIST.
LAND N/F
CHARLENE M,
SOVERO\ol
I LAND N/F LAND N/~~,.r~~;Zt~~~f~-~/~AND N/F RON,ALD J,I "d~+H61~,[' A, H &.
&. 'NORMA l !. GAY, SR,
I,iAJ;A~ A " ,
&. LUCY
GAUNT JONES
LAND N/F I LAND N/F
o!!$~~>L_..}.IUART &. MICHAEL --< ... , sHIRcrr-rfIDBB-INS--S
KIBBE KIBBE ANGELA
RICE
I LAND N/F _.....JlJ&E-PH 8-
LINDA
JACOBS
'-----------------._------------
LAND N/F
ROGER A,
SHERRY
LAND N/F
\.IILLIAM A,
S. JOAN
MAR TEL
LAND N/F
BARBARA J. I
MASON
LANE
*~OTE ' Ti c eXISTING
LEACH ING BASIN
INTO PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM
---
LAND N/F
ROBERT \01,
&. DEBORAH
GRIFFITH
LAND N/F
HARRIET S,
KEOGH
S. RUTH L.
COSIMINI
LAND N/F
JAMES S.
LILLIAN
\oIHITE
~-
~ LAND N/F \
GHEDI S. \
ELLS\.IORTH /
./"
192.6 LAND NIt="
/_--:-;f.~,;, PAVMOND L ~
PARCEL
A. DEROSIE
12
SQ.
.-
LAND N/F
CAAC, LLC
PARCEL B TO BE TRANSFERRED
lAND N/F
COSIMINI
PARCEL A DETAIL
PARCEL A TO BE TRANSFERRED
TO ASPENWOOD ASSOCIATES, LLC
DOANE AVE.
PARCEL .7'
69.0'
,osPENWOOOS lANE
R=IS.0'
L=11.5'
PARCEL B
TO RAYMOND E. AND MARILYN A.
DEROSIERS
\ \ ----.,
r --\
r~
I 1 , I // : , I
/ ,
" I , \ , , \ \ \ , , " I , '
// lAND OF
------1(::. HOME OWNER , '-, '
I ASSOCIATION
, 29.939,1 SQ. FT{'--
--__ '" r--,,-"---------... ,"' ... --':"--_.-/..,.-"" ... "" --. ,....-~ ..... "" ~--/' -' /
'----------_.-/ LAND N/F --_/ IJ ------------. .------
JAMES A, &. DENICE M, PAROLINE
SEilER
'-
, ,
\ I ,
I
\ ,
( , I , ,
I , ,
, ,
, \ '
\. ' \ , ' '-\', \
I , ' \ , ' , , ,
\ , , ,
, ' ,
\..... " ......... -.... ' .... , " \ ,
\' " , ,''-., " , \' ....... ..."" , ..... '-...... \ , , , '.. .....
................... ~-" " , , , , , ' , ' " ,
I 'i LOTS l
1 7,000 50'1-
J
\ ", j'\-
I \ \ "----. I I " , -r=-. I' --.,/-.-". I , \ \ " 1 ( ' .... , ~ __ ----.,.~..-~ 19;
;/ \ \\ \ \\ \ 1..... ........................... ___ ...... -----/ ' .... 1 0
/ I \ \ \ " , --...., ..... -.._~ _
_ ~ _/ i ... \ \ " ~~ ..... -?
'Q. ---___ ............... ~'_ )I( ----1-----"t', \ \\ \ ",," j----... --.......... ...._--..... I '~ , ,\ \ \ \ ", I /,.-/ ........... .... .... , __
,\ ... '\ \ " .... " ......', " ..... ~ I , ,'-., ... \, \. \ "-~_) % ..............."
... ·0&----" I ! '\' .. ", \~\ \\ 'A~ LOT B.... \ I l " ../ I " ...'''' >...... \ " __ -") ,".\,,\,.....,/ 12.51ACRt..~ '> .....
'................ ....-----~----\-/ I \ '\ '\ \ ,;.... '-,/ '--J I I L'''·,\,
----I I I \ \, \ \ '\ '... ----' '
I I \\\,\'-.
/
<. LOT
\21,841 SQ.
I
I
) ~-./ /
./
,
\
I , , ,
'\
\
\ \, , ,
~-j
I'
I
"-
---
I ,
\ \
\ \ , I , , , , , , , ,
\ I , \
\ \ \, /
~ \\/' \ <..J
'. \ \ fJ -, ) iQ:'
\ I I--.:. I-)/ / !5.;
(4i l<l' \ I. '"' \ 't:: tJ \ ~ \ ~, 4i ~J~ Cl:"J ~ -~/ ~ )
/:1 c /' (/J ~ ~ I'"
/ ~ ..... ~-.........
• ..,.
J I \. "\ \ \\ \ ""~100' BUFFER ~ _' ./ ,',.I \ .. X~!l\\ \ \... \ -..... ---I '-. , ~... \ '\ \........ ~roro------_------"""""",",-~_---..... (7)
" ""-&2-__ _ ... ----,I I \ "'f:J~~~,\ "\ \ \ \ \ \. {/\ ----.......... ... ...... -----.... \~ N. ... ____ I I I I !'" ... \ ... \. ... ~ i I ':.t ........... .......... ............-....l
/
j
/
I
, , /
LAND N/F
IJESTERN MASS,
ELECTRIC CD,
............ '80 / / : I : \ . \<\'\'\\,' : : ,...,.....--.-:-~-----~-....... ~ ~ ........................... ~~,D.rr-/O'" 'I "",,-,\$ __
..... ---.... I ': I II \ \ " ,,\ l I r / r--_ .... , ... ~ \ i ....... .... / I \'\ \ ,'. \ I ' / ------..... '"" .. '.... I I I i " I I I ............, '"
...... , ...... .......-----I I I I \ \ \ \ ,,\. I I . /-..-/ \~, l' ,,: -4--1~_. __ '--LEGEND LAND N/F
0. U POL E
--.. ----'y/----
10
D~H 0
"'" o
---SS ---
"
H,P,
L,P,
154,3 X
, .' A9
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXI STING UTILiTY POLE
EDGE OF IIOODS
IIATER MAIN
PROPOSED HYDRANT
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
SANIT ARY SEIo'ER MANHIILE
SAN!T ARY SEilER
CATCH BASIN
DRA[NAGE H[GH POINT
DRA[NAGE LOll PO[NT
PROPOSE D SPOT GRADE
EX[STiNG Io'ETlAND
.... .. ' , I I \ \ \ \' \.. ,./ '... -------\
.... , .... ,-/' { I' I \ ,\ \ \ \ '----,," 'f r /"" -...... , \ -..... '__ __-/ f I ' \ \ \ \ \ ' / / I r ----....... '-\ "
, \ , .......... --~_____ / ) , , " \' '-I I I I ....... \ \ \ OL\TlET ( ...... '-1 ' \, --.. / ", I \ \ \ \ \ \ , ,I I "I \ ---. ~ ',\ \, ......... .... _........ . _ ... ~.;'! I \ \ \, \ \ \ \ / I (I "\ \ I ",\ _ ~ " 1\', \ ,........ ---.;' I \ \\\ ,"-....Y I I'
\ \ \ \ \ \ .............. --.... ~-./ 'I \ \ " \~, '\ .... --... .......-<!J I I I I I \I \ \ \ \ ....... .... ... , '........... -.----... ... ... ---_ J' j , \ \ \' \ \, \. ...... --I ) I I f ~ \ I \ \ I I ' \ \ ........ .......... -_____________ ./ / \ , \ \'\ \ \ " I / ) ') \, \ I,
'I I, .... ............ ,,/ I I ,'\ \\ , )'
I ) ........... "........ ___ I \,\",,\', I.;'
\ \ I ........ .... .... ...'" I) l " \ \ \ \ \ \ \\',........ I J ( / (" ' 1\ I I I I .... ... ..... :.---------_...... --/ " I '\' , \ \\ \ ", '........ .Q.,'{./ If:' \: ~ \ ( ________ ./) I \ '\ \ \ \' ", '.... __ 1"'J I I ~ .......... ...." I
\ ~ \ \ \ \ \ ,\... )' , , , -......... _________ ---... { ,'\ '-\ \ \" .... ,.... I '.... '\.. \: \ ""',', -__ __-----------I' ,... \\\ '... '\ \', '-,', ~ ",I ','...........)
\ \ \ ... .----_........ ,-~/ ...... / , \ \ ' \ \ ',',.......... -... ----/ ..........-. J
SILVER STREE T REALTY, LLC
( ,
\ \ \ ... "" -------./ \ \ ", \ ,............ / '-~" "-/,' \ \ \ '-.... -_ ... ..--------_.--\ \ \ '\ \ .... ,...... ... I '. ~ , ;''''~~"' ~:...-~-_-...-: _...... \ \ ',\,.... .........../' I GLORYL~~~SN~~ALTY, ::C _____________ ~~~ __ ---'~-----~-'~'~~~)-\~--'~--~~~~~~~~~~-~-----~~-'~'----~_t~~~-------------~-~-~--~~~~~~~~~~~';:;.\~\-~'~'~'~:-'\~:~"~~~"~"~'~:'~,-"~'~,~,~-----~-/-/~~~---,-,-j-'~~~~~!i~~~~~~~~~~;':":':'~Si;1:1 ',~----,' AI
\ I '-.;:-~:--:~IA;;~~~~;:~:, '.... '-.......... -./
.;.;.; , 1~·'=" .....
: S 89'02'20· ·S9'{7"--(, --
\ \ ,\ ;r. .... ~ ~ .... _--, I 1 ~~ ---....... '-.........
\ 1 \ --........... '-.
LAND N/F
RAYMOND F. S. JOANNE LUCIA
\ \ \ '-............. ' \ ' , \ '-
,
~
I
" ,
REVIEWED & APPROVED BY
AGA WAM PLANNING BOARD
'" 03 10'
10'102 ...... 10'108
DATE:
C HA I RMAN: _________________ _
PROPERTY SHOWN IS OWNED BY
ASPENWOOD ASSOCIATES. LLC
SEE H.C.R.D. BOOK 17746 PAGE 290
AND
GUSTIN CARUSO ET.AL
SEE H.C.R.O. BOOK 17802 PAGE 126
AND
RAYMOND E. DEROSIERS
MARILYN A. DEROSIERS
L.C. CERTH 22624
SEE PLAN BOOK 321 PAGE 76
~E T LANDS DELINEATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY
AGA~AM CONSERVATION COMMISSION ON MAY 12, 2011
LAND N/F
JOHN F, ROSATI&.
THOMAS J, ROSATI , ,
/'" -) , '
/
AREA SHOWN 23.3 ACRES±
SCALE IN FEET
0' 80' 160' 240'
~iiiiiiiiiiiii~!
ZONED: />S SHOWN
FOR:
ASPENWOOD ASSOCIATES, LLC.
P.O. BOX 270
EAST GRANBY, CT.
DATE: SCALE: 1" -80'
6-17-2011
REV: 7-14-2011
EAN. INC.
40 SCHOOL STREET
MASSACHUSETTS
SURVEYORS &
ENGINEERS