8841_FORM A - 155 NORTH WEST ST.vS41
Is 5 Nod�, '�es-I- S f .
LAND N/F
JEFFREY HASTINGS
EXISTING BARN
EXISTING SHED
73.00'
REMAINING LAND OF
ARTHJR E. HASTINGS
REMAINING AREA = 33 ACRES t
NOT A LEGAL BUILDING LOT AT THIS TIME
LAND N/F
RICHARD C. ARDOLINO
N 13' 00' 00" E
74.00' 114.90, j �J
3 LOT 3
o AREA = 26,026 S.F. �--�
o � � ! ZONE ►INE' Al
RAA
EXISTING SHED
� LAND N/F
q ROGER MORIN
w
LAND OF
ARrHUR E HASTINGS
SEE PLAN BOOK 314 PAGE 66
4-
0
o EXSTING HOUSE
o # 141
140.00'
CD m
N EXISTING HOUSE#155 N
a
EXISTING
DRIVE' WAY
EXISTING '
DRIVE WAY
NOPFH WEST STREET
SYMBOL & LINE LEGEND
® IRON PIPE FOUND
o CONCRETE BOUND FOUND
♦ COMPUTED POINT
..... 00
S 13' 00' 00" W
I certify that this ,e
the Rules and Rego
254 9�,
A52
W
,s been p aced in accordance with
of th `sters of Deeds.
ion l Land Surveyor
n
0
Approval Under Subdivision
Control Law Not Required:
This Planning Board Endorsement
does not imply compliance with
the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act or Zoning By—law.
Agawam Planning Board
Ill OF
� �i 4
MARC
E.
EHUTE
Plan Of Land In
Agawam, Massachusetts
Surveyed And Mapped For
Owner
Arthur E Hastings
Date: 9-18-2017 scale: 1 "=40'
Prepared By
R L A
..
R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC
40 School Street
P.O. Box 640
Westfield, MA 01086
40 0 20 40 80
SCALE. 1 "=40'
RLA Job No.
170806
st 0 rp t�
R
Town of Agawam
36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1801
Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927
October 5, 2017
Arthur Hastings
141 North West Street
Feeding Hills, MA 01030
Dear Mr. Hastings:
At its duly called meeting held on October 5, 2017, the Agawam Planning Board voted to
approve your plans under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for a parcel of land located
on North West Street. Plans drawn by R. Levesque Associates and dated 9-18-2017.
Sincerely,
Please be advised that failure to record the plan within six (6) months and provide proof of
recording will negate the action of the Board. Detach on dotted line and return to the Agawam
PIanning Board, 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA 01001.
................................................................
To Agawam Planning Board C,-
Please be advised that the Form A plan that was filed by Hastings and approved by the Agawd*
Planning Board for a parcel of land located on North West Street. Plan has been recorded at tl
Hampden County Registry of Deeds. Book , Page
Signature of Applicant �--
TOWN OF AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS
FORNI A
Application for Endorsement of Plan Not Believed to Re uire Approval
FILE ONE COMPLETED FORM WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND ONE COPY
WITH THE TOWN CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 11-13
September a__20 17 -
TO THE PLANNING BOARD:
The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of his property in the Town of
Agawam does not constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdivision
Control Law, herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement that
Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required.
1. Name of Applicant Arthur Hastings.
Address 141 North West Street, Agawam. MA 01001
2.
3.
4.
5.
Phone# 413-786-1438 Fax #
email
�a
Name of Surveyor Marc E. Shute
r++
Address 40 School Street Westfield MA 01085
Phone # 413-568-0985 Fax # 413-568-o986 email
Deed of Property Recorded in Hampden County
Book � f01 _ Page 4 n —
s
Location of Property 155 North West Street, Aga am, MA 01001 Describe the proposal in this submission: RECEIVED
To create a new lot which encompasses house #155
SEP 2 1 2017
AGAWAM
PANNING BOARD
ATTACHMENTS - Two originals and three copies of plan by certifier) Ia
surveyor Filing ee - $50.00 pins $20.00 per lot.
Sig nature of Owner Address
1
Town of Agawam
Interoffice Memorandum
To: Erik Wight, Building Inspector
CC:
From: Planning Board
Date: 9/21/17
Subject: Form A - 155 North West St. - Hastings
Please review and comment on the attached Form A for Hastings by RLA before the
Planning Board's next meeting on Thursday, October 5, 2017.
Please return the copy of the plan upon your review.
Thank you,
PRK:amb
Attachment
FROM THE DESK OF...
YOUR NAME
TITLE
TOWN OF AGAWAM
36 MAIN ST
AGAWAM. MA 01001
Email address Here
413-786-0400 X Extension
Fax: 413-786-9927
Town of Agawam
Interoffice Memorandum
To: Law Department
CC:
From: Planning Board
Date: 9I21 /17
Subject: Form A - 155 North West St. - Hastings
Our office is in receipt of a Form A application for 155 North West St. The plan shows
the creation of a new lot, which will create a shortage of frontage for the original lot.
Could you please provide an opinion on how the Planning Board should proceed, and/or
if a variance from the ZBA would be required from the applicant?
Thank you,
MAS: amb
Attachment
FROM THE DESK OF...
YOUR NAME
TITLE
TOWN OFAGAWAM
36 MAIN ST
AGAWAM, MA 01001
Email address Here
413-786-0400 X Extension
Fax: 413-786-9927
1
M
PROCESS FOR APPROVING BUILDING LOTS
LACKING ADEQUATE FRONTAGE
Frequently a landowner wishes to create a building lot which will not meet the minimum frontage
requirement of the local zoning bylaw. As a Building Inspector, or member of a Planning Board or
Zoning Board of Appeals, you have probably been asked by a local property owner what he or she
must do to get approval for a building lot which does not meet the frontage requirement specified in
the local zoning bylaw.
In Seguin v. Planning Board of Upton 33 Mass. App. Ct. 374 (1992), the Massachusetts Appeals
Court reviewed the process for approving building lots lacking the necessary frontage.
The Seguins wished to divide their property into two lots for single family use. One lot had the
required frontage on a paved public way. The other lot had 98.44 feet of frontage on the same
public way. The Seguins applied for and were granted a variance from the 100 foot frontage
requirement of the Upton Zoning Bylaw. Upon obtaining the variance, the Seguins submitted a plan
to the Planning Board seeking the Board's endorsement that approval under the Subdivision Control
Law was not required. The Planning Board denied endorsement on the ground that one of the lots
shown on the plan lacked the frontage required by the Upton Zoning Bylaw. Rather than
resubmitting the plan as a subdivision plan for approval by the Planning Board pursuant to Section
81 U of the Subdivision Control Law, the Seguins appealed the Planning Board's denial of the ANR
endorsement.
Whether a plan requires approval or not rests with the definition of "subdivision" as found in MGL,
Chapter 41, Section 81L. A "subdivision" is defined in Section 81L as the "division of a tract of
land into two or more lots," but there is an exception to this definition. A division of land will not
constitute a "subdivision" if, at the time it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has the
required frontage on a certain type of way. MGL, Chapter 41, Section 81 L states that a subdivision
is:
the division of a tract of land into two or more lots ... [except where]
every lot within the tract so divided has frontage —of at least such
distance as is then required by zoning T.ordinance or by-law if
any ... and if no distance is so required, suchT frontage shall be of at
least twenty feet.
N
�7
M
I
F,w
F.
0
77 1
The only pertinent zoning requirement for determining whether a plan depicts a subdivision is
frontage. The Seguins argued that the words "frontage...of at least such distance as is then required
by zoning —by-law" should be read as referring to the 98.44 foot frontage allowed by the Zoning
Board's variance, with the result that each lot shown on the plan had the required frontage. In
making their argument that their plan was entitled to an ANR endorsement, the Seguin relied on
previous court cases which had held that the required frontage requirement of the Subdivision
Control Law is met when a special permit is granted approving a reduction in lot frontage from
what is normally required in the zoning district.
In Ha es v. Grasso 353 Mass. 731 (1068), the court reviewed a zoning bylaw provision which had
been adopted by the town of Needham. The bylaw empowered the Board of Appeals to grant
special permits authorizing a reduction from the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of the
bylaw. Before granting such special permits, the Board of Appeals had to make one of the
following findings:
a. Adjoining areas have been previously developed by the
construction of buildings or structures on lots generally smaller Haan
is prescribed by (the bylaw) and the standard of the neighborhood so
established does not reasonably require a subdivision of the
applicant's land into lots as large as (required by the bylaw).
b. Lots as large as (required by the bylaw) would not be readily
saleable and could not be economically or advantageously used for
building purposes because of the proximity of the land to through
ways bearing heavy traffic, or to a railroad, or because of other
physical conditions or characteristics affecting it but not affecting
generally the zoning district.
The Board of Appeals granted a special permit which authorized the creation of two lots having less
lot area and frontage than normally required by the zoning bylaw. On appeal, it was argued that the
creation of the two lots was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board because the
division of land creating lots lacking the necessary frontage was governed by the Subdivision
Control Law. The court ruled that the Planning Board did not have jurisdiction as there was no
subdivision of land requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The court found that the
requirement that each lot has frontage of at least such distance as Leguired by the zoning bylaw was
met by the granting of the special permit. The court further noted that this was not a variance from
the zoning law but a special application of its terns.
78
The court reached the same conclusion in Adams v. Board of Appeals of Concord, 356 Mass. 709
(1970), where the Concord Zoning Bylaw authorized the Board of Appeals to approve garden
apartment developments having less than the minimum frontage requirement of the bylaw. The
court found that a lot, having less frontage than normally required by the zoning bylaw but which
has been authorized by special permit, met the frontage requirement of the zoning bylaw and the
Subdivision Control Law. Since the reduced frontage for the garden apartment plan had been
approved by special permit, the Planning Board was authorized to endorse the plan approval not
required.
The distinction in the S_ eg! in case was that the Seguins received a variance to create a lot lacking
the frontage normally required by the zoning bylaw. The court found that a plan showing a lot
having less than the required frontage, even if the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted a frontage
variance for the lot, was a subdivision plan which required approval under the Subdivision Control
Law. In holding that the Seguins' plan was not entitled to an approval not required endorsement
from the Planning Board, the court noted its previous decision in Arri o v. Planning Board of
Franklin, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 802 (1981). In that case, the court analyzed the authority of a.Planning
Board to waive strict compliance with the frontage requirement specified in the Subdivision
Control Law.
Landowners, in Agigo, wished to create a building lot which would not meet the minimum lot
frontage requirement of the zoning bylaw. The minimum lot frontage requirement was 200 feet, and
the minimum lot area requirement was 40,000 square feet. They petitioned the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a variance and presented the Board with a plan showing two lots, one with 5.3 acres
and 200 feet of frontage, and the other lot with 4.7 acres and 186.71 feet of frontage. The Board of
Appeals granted a dimensional variance for the lot which had the deficient frontage. Upon
obtaining the variance, the landowners applied to the Planning Board for approval of a plan
showing the two lot subdivision.
The Planning Board waived the 200 foot frontage requirement for the substandard lot pursuant to
the Subdivision Control Law and approved the two lot subdivision. MGL, Chapter 41, Section $1R,
authorizes a Planning Board to waive the minimum frontage requirement of the Subdivision
Control Law provided the Planning Board determines that such waiver is in the public interest and
not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Control Law.
As stated earlier, the minimum frontage requirement of the Subdivision Control Law is found in
MGL, Chapter 41, Section 91L, which states that the lot frontage is the same as is specified in the
local zoning bylaw, or 20 feet in those cases where the local zoning bylaw does not specify a
minimum lot frontage.
In deciding the Arrigo case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court had the opportunity to comment on
the fact that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals are faced with different statutory
responsibilities when considering the question of creating a building lot lacking minimum lot
79
frontage. Although MGL, Chapter 41, Section 8 1 R gives the Planning Board the authority to waive
the frontage requirement for the purposes of the Subdivision Control Law, the court stressed that
the authority of the Planning Board to .waive frontage requirements pursuant to 81 R should not be
construed as authorizing the Planning Board to grant Zoning variances. The court noted that there is
indeed significance between the granting of a variance for the purposes of the Zoning Act and
approval of a subdivision plan pursuant to the Subdivision Control Law. On this point, the court
summarized the necessary approvals in order to create a building lot lacking minimum lot frontage.
In short, then, persons in the position of the Mercers, seeking to
make two building lots from a parcel lacking adequate frontage, are
required to obtain two independent approvals: one from the planning
board, which may in its discretion waive the frontage requirement
under the criteria for waiver set out in G.L. c. 41, s. 81R, and one
from the board of appeals, which may vary the frontage requirement
only under the highly restrictive criteria of G.L. c. 40A, s. 10. The
approvals serve different purposes, one to give marketability to the
lots through recordation, the other to enable the lots to be built upon.
The action of neither board should, in our view, bind the other,
particularly as their actions are based on different statutory criteria.
Absent a zoning bylaw provision authorizing a reduction in lot frontage by way of the special
permit process, an owner of land wishing to create a building lot which will have less than the
required lot frontage needs to obtain approval from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Planning Board. A Zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals varying the lot frontage
requirement is necessary in order that the lot may be built upon for zoning purposes. It is also
necessary that the lot owner obtain a frontage waiver from the Planning Board for the purposes of
the Subdivision Control Law.
In the Arno case, the landowners had submitted a subdivision plan to the Planning Board. The
court noted that without obtaining the frontage waiver the plan was not entitled to approval as a
matter of law because, although it may have complied with the Planning Board's rules and
regulations, it did not comply with the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law. After
the Apig decision, it was debatable as to the process a landowner followed to obtaining a frontage
waiver from the Planning Board. Rather than submitting a subdivision plan, another view was that a
landowner could submit a plan seeking an approval not required endorsement from the Planning
Board and at the same time petition the Board for a frontage waiver pursuant to 81 R. If the
Planning Board granted the frontage waiver and noted such waiver on the plan, then the Board
could endorse the plan approval not required.
80
M
The Seguin case clarifies the process that must be followed when a landowner seeks a frontage
waiver from the Planning Board. If a lot shown on a plan lacks the frontage required by the zoning
bylaw, then the plan shows a subdivision and must be reviewed under the approval procedure
specified in Section 81 U of the Subdivision Control Law. The Planning Board must hold a public
hearing before determining whether a frontage waiver is in the public interest and not inconsistent
with the Subdivision Control Law. A notation that a frontage waiver has been granted by the
Planning Board should either be shown on the plan or on a separate instrument attached to the plan
with reference to such instrument shown on the plan. It is unclear whether a Planning Board must
allow the Board of Health 45 days to comment on the plan when the only issue before the Planning
Board is the frontage waiver. We would recommend that Planning Boards consider amending their
rules and regulations providing for a shorter review period when a landowner is only seeking a
frontage waiver from the Planning Board. A Planning Board may also want to specify a fee and any
relevant information that should be submitted with the plan.
In determining whether to grant a frontage waiver, a Planning Board should consider if the frontage
is too narrow to permit easy access or if the access from the frontage to the buildable portion of the
lot is by a strip of land too narrow or winding to permit easy access. In the Seguin case, the court
noted that the lot appeared to present no problem and indicated that the Planning Board would be
acting unreasonably if the Seguins submitted a subdivision plan and the Board did not approve the
plan.
0
i
�I
7
i
81 1
No:
Town of Agawam
Schedule of Departmental Payments to Treasurer
DATE 9/21 /2017
ORG. AND OBJECT
SOURCE
AMOUNT TOTAL
22010 42400
R. Levesque Associates,lnc.
70.00
70.00
0 0
-
-
0 0
0
-
-
0 0
arm A - Hastings
-
-
0 0
0
-
-
,:.:...: ....'s. SECUft1T
i • '
0 0 0 -
0 0 0 - -
Total 70.00
No. Date; 912112017
To the Accounting Office
The above is a detailed list of moneys collected by me, amounting in the aggregate to
the sum of 70.00 Dollars,
for the Form A- Hastings ending 912112017
which I have paid to the Treasurer, whose receipt i hold therefor.
Planning and Community Development
Date: 9/21/2017
To the Department Officer making the Payment:
Received of R. Levesque Associates,lnc. as Listed Above
the sum of 70,00 Dollars
for the Form A - Hastings ending 912112017
for collections as per schedule of this date, filed in my office.
Treasurer
r
PAYMENT SUMMARY RECEIPT
Town of Agawam
TOWN HALL
36 MAIN STREET
AGAWAM MA 01001
DATE: 09/21/17 CUSTOMER#: 00000000D
TIME: 13:07
CLERK: karen.dr
RECPT#: 1266565 PREY BAL:
TP/YR: MS/2018 AMT PAID: 70.00
BILL: ADJSTMNT:
EFF DT: 09/21/17 BAL DUE:
MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT
---------- `----TOTALS-----------------
PRINCIPAL PAID: 70.00
INTEREST PAID: .00
ADJUSTMENTS: .00
DISC TAKEN: .00
AMT TENDERED: 7D.00
AMT APPLIED: 7D.DD
CHANGE: .00
PAID BY: PLANNING
PAYMENT METH: CHECK
PAYMENT REF:
. r