The URL can be used to link to this page

8269_FORM A - ROWLEY STREET - RONDINELLI F, rm Flee �- 1 CECILE ST. ND N/F ALBERT AND AMELIA LANGO BRIE COUNTRY R��.- N 80.12'00" E 696.49' ---- Q pU GREEN �2 . ACRE LN � k 1 LAND N/F U1s 4' Cf3 RON RASQUAL . ROWLEY ST. �� a Iw E3INELL I � W LOCUS 1?0 ( � 0-n S cn T LOCUS MAP sue. LAND N/F MARK RONDINELLI 0 PARCEL B NOTE: AREA= 7,14 ACRES PARCEL "B" \A, �Opa t NOT A LEGAL BUILDING LOT AT THIS TIME LAND N/F DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE PAUL J. AND IS NOT A BUILDING LOT WITHOUT FURTHER ZONING RELIEF a DAMATO ti 0 0 ,moo LAND N/F JAMES P. RONDINELLI t��► �04 ,�o0 f x 0 LOT 3 so. �N 21.034 S.F. �78 g5 Y 4- ¢4 jiPd LOT 3 AND PARCEL "B" IS OWNED BY LO. LAND N/F BEVEMY A. RONDO*W AND JAMB R. SEE DEED BOOK 5951 PG. 459 AND PLAN BOOK 286 PG. 19 �y HERBERT E.. LUCY AND STEVEN MORRIS �45Ta' „ 5 65•'!9'O4 � LAND NI€ HERBERT E. MORRIS FEET 0' 40' 80' 1204 mow APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION SCALD CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED PLANNING BOARD— TOWN OF e AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONED: AGRICULTURE THIS SURVEY & PLAN WERE DATE: i,J PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE DIVISN PRP 'TY WITH THE PROCEDURAL & CHAIRMAN: TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAND t�'OF FOR: (DWNER� SURVEYI IN THE � `' ,r,, JAMES P. RONDINEL I COMM W LTH OF S. �: `sm 211 ROWLEY STREET PLANNING BOARD ENDORSEMENT UNDER THE SHCIETE,` •w AGAW-M., MAC f SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW SHOULD NOT BE DATE: SCALE: =44 CONSTRUED AS EITHER AN ENDORSEMENT OR AN � `�•— --r- APPROVAL OF ZONING LOT AREA REOUIREMENTS I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE UN ° 9•-1!8--2003 CHECKED: —E,4&,. CONFORMED WITH THE :RULES A. � SHEET NO & REGU TIONS OF TH-E T.. REGIST F DEED. L _ PREP` N THIS P t*N 0 ' 0. .0 - ..r .1-• .,,.!'.r.--a't .. ... S f'y c :-Y ...-: ��.,t„ NfJ _' .x:f/,ti;:..4 F. -f. V{ — J ' - h i-, Y - Ytt.5.4 F CECILE ST. LAND N/F ALBERT AND AMELIA LANGO BRIEN ' COUNTRY RD� N SOl2'00" E 696.49' Q 0 i pC3 GREEN 4 r ' 00 ACRE LN LAND N/F ROWLEY ST. ��'� PASQUALE RONDINELLI Q �7 0 �- W LOCUS z % CL c� T ti LOCUS MAP LAND N/F MARK RONDINELLI a PARCEL '� B * NOTE: AREA= 7.14 ACRES PARCEL "B" uj NOT A LEGAL BUILDING LOT AT THIS TIME } Q LAND N/F DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE PAUL J. AND IS NOT A BUILDING LOT WITHOUT FURTHER ZONING RELIEF iv DAMATO 0 2 O 0{ r� � f LAND N/F JAMES P. RONDINELLI 9a Ct� 2 �g rrr fn 00, lo � p91�Oq� r a, :v. } O LOT 3 21,034 S.F. H 3�8•g`', 3 W LOT 3 AND PARCEL W IS OWNED BY BEVERLY A. RCODNE U AND JAMES P. RONDRALLI LAND N/F SEE DEED BOOK 5951 PG. 459 AND PLAN BOOK 286 PG. 19 o, HERBERT E., LUCY AND STEVEN MORRIS S 6�19 Q0" Vy 4.. LAND N/F FEET HERBERT E. MORRIS 0' 40' 80' 120' APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION SCALE CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED t PLANNING BOARD- TOWN OF AGAWAM MASSACHUSETTS ZONED: AGRICULTURE THIS SURVEY & PLAN WERE DIVISION OF PROPERTY DATE: 'r a-OO�}� PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL & AGAWAM. MASSACHU$Ejj.S._.. . CHAIRMAN: TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR FOR: (OWNER) THE PRACTICE OF LAND �� °F JAMES P. RONDINELLI SURVEYI IN THE w COMM W ALTH OF S. �: MERr '`� 211 ROWLEY STREET . 04UTE AGAWAM, MA, PLANNING BOARD ENDORSEMENT UNDER THE l0' .DATE: SCALE: 1 ,.=40' SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW SHOULD NOT BE . CONSTRUED AS EITHER AN ENDORSEMENT OR AN SURI � 9-18 -2003 CHECKED: M E S: I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE A. APPROVAL OF ZONING LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS CONFORMED WITH THE RULES C . SHEET N 0 T,J•A1 OF 1 . REGU TIONS OF THE REGIST F DEED PREP IN: THIS P ■ • EAR > 44CHwIL ' No. August 12 20 03 To the Departmental Officer making the Payment: Received of D.L. Bean, Inc. ,the.sum of Thirty-five and 00/00 Dollars, for the Form A Filing Fee ending for collections as per schedule of this date, filed in my office. ' T surer, A G A W A M P L A N N I N G B 0 A R D J 36 Main Street Z. Agawam. Massachusetts 01001 Tel . 413--786-0400 Ext. 245 V 1 FORM A " }ication for Endorsement of Plan Be eves Not to Require A r val FILE ONE COMPLETED FORM WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND ONE COPY WITH THE TOWN CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11-8 Date: Aueust 11 i2003 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 ap&roval._, under the Subdivision Control Law is not required. I. NAME OF APPLICANT James Rondinelli Address 211 Rowlej Street -- Agawam 2. NAME OF SURVEYOR D.L. Bean, Inc. Address 40 School Street -- Westfield NO � m 3. DEED OF PROPERTY RECORDED IN Hampden County Book 5951 Page 459 4. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Property is located on the northeasterly sideline of Rowley Street. 5. DESCRIBE THE PROPOSAL IN THIS SUBMISSION.- To create a lot around house #221 and retain the remaining parcel of land. Parcel is not a°.legal building lot as noted on plan. ATTACHMENTS -- TWO ORIGINALS AND THREE COPIES of PLAN BY CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR. THE PLANS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS: i ORIGINAL TO THE TOWN OF AGAWAM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ONE ORIGINAL TO BE RECORDED AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS BY THE APPLICANT, ONE COPY FOR THE ASSESSORS OFFICE, ONE COPY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, AND ONE CERTIFIED COPY FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Signature of Owner ` Address 9f} 4 - i��- r TOWN OF AGAWAM INTEROFFICE RtED�p� MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board CC: File From: Engineering Date: August 18, 2003 Subject: Form-A- #224 - Rowley Street-Rondinelli Per your request dated August 12, 2003, we have reviewed the plan entitled, "Division of Property Agawam,MA; Prepared for James P. Rondinelli 211 Rowley Street;Prepared by: D.L.Bean, Inc.; Scale 1"=40; Date: August 1, 2003", and we have no con m.ents at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our division. Sincerely, J(,L Michael C. Chase, E.I.T. Adam.S. Chase, E.I.T. Civil Engineer II Civil Engineer I os_ HAIENGINEERT0RMA1224101.wpd ,�yy��pp., i sy_ •t Town of Agawam •N 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 �Ma Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 ca c PLANNING BOARD c August 27, 2003 �n w c0 James Rondinelli 211 Rowley Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Mr. Rondinelli: At its duly called meeting held on August 26, 20031 the Agawam Planning Board voted to deny your plan for property on Rowley Street under"Subdivision Control Law Not Required". The reason for this denial is that the plan shows the creation of a lot with inadequate frontage. The plan that was acted upon was dated 8-1-2003 and was prepared by D.L. Bean,Inc. If you have any questions,please contact this office at 786-0400, extension 283. Sincerely, f3 Dermis B. Hopkins, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD DBH:pre cc: Town Clerk T�ovy�i §olicitor F' e Town of Agawam "t 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 p` Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-"27 �M - MEMO TO: . . Attorney Thomas S. Locke, Town Solicitor FROM: Planning Board DATE: August 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Legal Opinion - "Approval Not Required"Plan The Planning Board voted last night to deny a Form A for Mr. Rondinelli on Rowley Street. The reason for denial was that the plan creates a lot with inadequate frontage. Mr. Rondinelli and his representative, Dave Bean, were in attendance a the meeting and did not agree with the Board's decision, After a lengthy discussion of the matter, the members agreed to ask for a legal opinion from you. The next meeting of the Board is September 4, 2003. The members would appreciate a response to this request prior to that meeting. Thank you. DBH:pre Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 aTED MP Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 MEMO TO: Building Inspector& Engineering Department FROM: Planning Board DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Form A -Rowley Street - Rondinelli Please review and comment on the attached Form A for Rondinelli on Rowley Street prior to the Board's August 21g`meeting. Thank you. DSD:pre s Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 `1 Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 RTEO MA . MEMO TO: Building Ins for&Engineering Department FROM: Planning Board DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Form A- Rowley Street -Rondinelli Please review and comment on the attached Form A for Rondinelli on Rowley Street prior to the Board's August 21"meeting. Thank you. DSD:pre !�/f z rn LA.) m ,� r A G A W A M P L A N N I N G B 0 A R D A ` 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001 Tel . 413-786-0400 Ext. 245 '• 'N. FORM A PS Apt ion for Endorsement of Pare Believed Not to Require Ao[rroyal �E ONE COMPLETED FORM WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND ONE COPY WITH THE TOWN CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11-B Date: August 11, 2003 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 James Rondinelli Address_ 211 Rowley Street - Agawam w 2. NAME OF SURVEYOR D.L. Bean, Inc. Address 40 School Street - Westfield 3. DEED OF PROPERTY RECORDED IN Hampden County CA Book 5451 Page 4:s--- �— -- — 4. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: property is located on the north stp3lyv sideline of Rowley Street. cs a tV � m O r.. C. 5. DESCRIBE THE PROPOSAL IN THIS SUBMISSION-. To create a lot around house #221 and retain the remaining parcel of land. Parcel is not allegal building lot as noted on plan. ATTACHMENTS -- TWO ORIGINALS AND THREE COPIES OF PLAN BY CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR. THE PLANS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS: i ORIGINAL TO THE TOWN OF AGAWAM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ONE ORIGINAL TO BE RECORDED AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS BY THE APPLICANT, ONE COPY FOR THE ASSESSORS OFFICE, ONE COPY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, AND - ONE CERTIFIED COPY FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Signature of Owner - -� 2�lAdd rasa -- CEME ST- LAND N/F ALBERT AND AMELIA LANGO BR1EN COUNTRY RD N 8912'00" E 696.49' p GREEN z LAND N/F PASQUALE ROND€NELLI ROWLEY ST. =O6) LOCUS R0 LEY � ST Z LOCUS MAP LAND N/F MARK RONDINELLI i o PARCEL B 00 ��00 AREA= 7.14 ACRES NOT A LEGAL BUILDING LOT AT THIS TIME o LAND N/F Q PAUL J. DAMATO b Z � O 00s p°s �L �0 '00. LAND N/F _ JAMES P. RONDINELLI �0 00, oO 1 k t' LOT 3 21,034 S.F. 3Zg.95 }ate. p � � v S r051 Ofl c Z j LOT 3 AND PARCEL "B" IS OWNED BY °• �a BEVERLY A. RONDINELU AND JAMES P. RONDINELLI o u �0000. LAND N/F - SEE DEED BOOK 5951 PG. 459 AND PLAN BOOK 286 .Q 19 HERBERT E., LUCY AND STEVEN MORRIs REJECTED BY " W AGAWAM IVY � #'L.ANNI X pt�6 2 D LAND N/F . ,�:1�::::: -. . .� HERBERT E. MORR€5 I O' 40' 80' 120' APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION SCALE CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED PLANNING BOARD- TOWN OF AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS ZONED: AGRICULTURE THIS SURVEY & PLAN WERE DIVISION OF PROPERTY DATE: PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE • WITH THE PROCEDURAL & AGAWAM MASSACHUSETTS CHAIRMAN: TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR FOR: (OWNER) THE PRACTICE OF LAND *`�0 OF � JAMES P. RONDINELLI SURVEYING IN THE + COMMONWEALTH OF MASS. `� 211 ROWLEY STREET AGAWAM, MA. sHUTE _ PLANNING BOARD ENDORSEMENT UNDER THE d3W'& DATE' SCALE: 1 "=40' SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EITHER AN ENDORSEMENT OR AN I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE o suriw'�� ' 8-1 -2003 CHECKED: M.E.S. APPROVAL OF ZONING LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS CONFORMED WITH THE RULES C.A.D. SHEET N0. & REGULATIONS OF THE r T.J.A. 1 OF 1 REGISTER OF DEEDS IN PREPARI THIs L N. D . I, , 13 EAN INC. SURVEYORS . � 40 SCHOOL STREET - & WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS ENGINEERS f a Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 s Mp Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 MEMO TO:. Attorney Thomas S. Locke,Town Solicitor FROM: Deborah S. Dachos,Director Office of PIanning&Community Development DATE: September 3,2003 SUBJECT: Form A-Rowley Street-Rondinelli Attached please find information that was submitted by Dave Bean regarding Mr.Rondinelli's Form A that the Board recently rejected. Also attached is the excerpt from Chapter 41 that I had provided to the Board members. DSD:pre f made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way, or (b) a way al om.cn a plan thaLetofore approved and endorsed in ac=dance with the subdivision control law, cr a (c) a way in existenoe whan the subdivision ca , control law became effective in the city or town in wbirh the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, suitable grades, and adequate oonstzvction to provide for 1� the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting than car Served thereby, and for the i n at a 11 Ativr► Of municipal services to serve such land and the bUl d i� erected or to be exected thereon. SUch frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then required by zocdmg or other anti nanm or by-law, if any, of said city or town for erection of a building on such lot, and if no distance is so requILed, such frontage shall be of at least twenty feet. Ca weyances or other i.nstnments adding to, taking away from, or changing the size and shape of, lots in such a manner as not to leave any lot so affected without the frontage above set forth, or the division of a tract of Land on which two or more buildings were standing wiLen the subdivision control law went into effect in the city or town in which the land lies into separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remains standing, shall not constitute a subdivision. Subdivision Control 'Subdivision control" shall mean the power of regulating the subdivision of land granted by the subdivision control lawn. Added by St. 1953, c. 674, a. 7; Amended by St. 1955, c. 411, s. 2; St. 1956, c. 282; St. 1957, c. 138, s. 1; St. 1957, c. 163; St. 1958, c. 206, s. 1; St. 1961, c. 331; St. 1963, c. 580; St. 1965, c. 61; St. 1979, c. 534. L. D. BEAN INC. [�� r` I� Q� V o ° m"MOV I�°M Land Consultants Forty School Street VUESTFIELD, MASSACHlJSETTS 01085 GATE 7 6 NO. (413) 562-7566 August 29, 2003 FAX (413) 562-2091 ArrENTION Deborah Dachos Town Planner TO RE: Planning Board Rondinelli ANR 36 Main Street Rowley Street Agawam, MA 01001 WE ARE SENDING YOU M Attached 0 Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order [X FRQcerpts COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 - 4 Excerpts from MGL 41-81P. & 81L. 1 1963 2 Court Case: Bloom vs. P.B. 346 Mass 278 (Condensed) 1 1995 2 Court Case: Cricones Vs. P.B. 39 Mass App. Ct. 264 (Condensed) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval N For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Debby: These are offered for Tom Locke's review of the Rondinelli ANR. Subdivision = 2 or more lots. Lots. = building lots. Rondinelli only has one _ lot - Parcel "B" is clearly labled as not being a lot. See Bloom & Cricones. Thank you. 20 Tag y Sty V 61AY'f4t ' Sincerldg. COPY TO Thomas Locke, Esquire ,Tim Rondinelli SIGNED: M enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. David L. Bean, President SECTION 81-P. Endorsement of Plans Not Requiring Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Any person wishing to cause to be recorded a plan of land situated in a city or ta,n in which the Procedure subdivision control law is in effect, who believes that his plan does not require approval under the subdivision control law, dray submit his plan to the planning board of such city or town in the Endorsement Within marmer pzescribed in section eighty-one T, and, if 21 Days the board finds that the plan does not require such app=ral, it shall forthwith, without a public hearing, endorse thereon or cause to be endorsed thereon by a person authorized by it the words "accroval under the subdivision control law not xeqILz_'ed" or words of similar inTort with appropriate mime or .names signed thereto, and such endorser-ent shall be conclusive on all persons. Such endong=t shall not withheld unless such If Ap!pzaval Required, Ian shows a subciivi.sion. If the board shall Notice to Clerk and �e=rntine t�i- hits opinion the plan zequises Applicant Within approval, it shall within twenty-one days of such 21 Days submittal-, give written notice of its determi.ruation to the clerk of the city or taunt and the per.cn submitting the plan, and such person may submit his plan for approval, as provided by law and tie rules .and regulations of the baaYd, or he may a^geal fran the deteaaznatian of the board in the rrarute_r provided in section eighty-one BB. if the board fails to act upon a plan submitted under t s section or fails to notify the clerk of the city or toxin and the person suhnitting the plan of its action within twenty-one days after Failure to Act ,its su,mission, it shall be deared to have Deemed Aral detentLred that approval under the subdivision control '-w is not mind, and it shall fort-'L�-it,i mace such endorseTent on said plan, and an its 'a'.lure to do so forthwith the city or taun clerk shall issue a certif irate to the Sarre effect. The plan bearing such endorserent or the plan and such certificate, as the case may be, shall be delivered by the planning board, or in case of the certificate, by the city or town clerk to the person submitting such plan. The pi&m ng Signature of Other Tt= board of a city or town which has authorized any Majority of Boaxd person, other than a majority of the board, to endorse on a plan the approval of the board or to mace any other certificate under the subdivision statement to control law, shall transmit a written statement to Register of Deeds and the register of deeds and the recorder of the land Recorder of band Court court, signed by a majority of the board, giving the name of the person so authorized. P -- 1 subdivision control-law as provided in section eighty-one N or co=respa%I ng provisians of earlier laws, or has been established by special law with powers of subdivision control. kwliminary Plan "Frelimi-rjar plan" shall mean a plan of a proposed subdivision or resubdivisicn of lard drawn on Planning Board cannot tracing paper, or a print thereof, showing (a) the require an applicant to subdivision name, boundaries, north point, date, submit more inf=ation scale, legend and title "Prelintina y Plan", (b) than is contained in the nacres of the record owner and the applicant the definition of a and the name of the designer, engineer or Freliminazy Plan. surveyor; (c) the names of all abutters, as detemmined from the most regent local tax list; (d) the existing and proposed lines of streets, Ways, easer-m 1ts and any pabli.c areas within the subdivision in a general manner; (e) the proposed system of drainage, including adjacent existing natural waterways, in a genera3. manner; (f) the appxoxuTate boundary lines of psvposed lots, with approocimate areas and dbnansicns; (g) the names, approximate location and widths of adjacent streets; (h) and the topography of the lam in a general meaner. Recorded "Recorded" shall mean recorded in the registry of deeds of the county or district in which the land in question is situated,. except that, as affecting registered ,land, it shall mean filed with the recorder of the land cou t. Register of Deeds "Register of deeds" shall mean the register of deeds of the sty or district in which the land in question, or the city or town in question, is situated, arid, when apprOgtf2te, shall include the recorder of the land oot=t. Registered YAil "Registered mail" shall mean registered or certified mail. Registry of Deeds "Registry of deeds" shall meats the registry of deeds of the caunt:y or district in which the land in question is situated, and, when appropriate, shalt include the ]and court. Subdivision , „Subdivision" shall mean the division of a tract of land into two or rrore include resubdivision, and, when ap_—pr�riate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdivision or the land or territory subdivided; pmr ?ided, however, that the division of a tract of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute e a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the time when it is KlL-2 made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a usy welch the cleric of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way, or (b) a way shown cn a plan theretofore approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, satable gxades, and adequate construction to ptvvide for the needs of vehic lar traffic in relation to the pinposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby, and for the installation of mmicip3l services to serve such Land and the buildings erected or to-be erected thereon. Stich frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then requLred by zoning or other ordinance or by-law, if any, of said city or town for.erection of a building on such lot, and if no distance is so required, such frontage shall be of at least twenty feet. Conveyances or other omits adding to, taking away firm, or changing the size and shape of, lots in such a manner as not to leave any lot so affected without the frontage above set forth, or the division of a tract of land on which two or nore buildings wexe standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in the city or town in which the land lies. inta separate lots on each of which one of such baUdings remains standing, shall not constitute a subdivision. Subdivision control "Subdivision control" shall awn the power of regulating .the subdivision of land granted by the subdivision control law. Added by St. 1953, c. 674, s. 7; Amended by St. 1955, c. 411, s. 2; St. 1956, F. 282; St. 1957, c. 138, s. 1; St. 1957, c. 163; St. 1958, c. 206, s. 1; St. 1961, c. 331; St. 1963, .c. 580; St. 1965, c. 61; St. 1979, c. 534. K/L-3 SECTION 81-K. Designation of Law Sections eighty-one K to eighty-one GG, inclusive, shall be designated and may be known as "the subdivision control law". This designation shall, when apt, include corresponding provisions of earlier laws. Added by St. 1953, c. 674, s. 7. SECTION 81-L. Definitions in construing the subdivision control law, the following words shall have the following meaning, unless a contrary intention clearly appears; Applicant "Applicant" shall include an owner or his agent or repressmtativs, or his assigns. Certified "Certified by (or endorsed by) a planning board", as applied to a plan or other instrument required or authorized by the subdivision control law to be recorded, shall mean bearing a certification or endorsement signed by a majority of the members of a planning board, or by its aim*+ or clerk or any other person authorized by it to certify or endorse its approval or other action and named in a written statement to the register of deeds and recorder of the land court, signed by a majority of the board. Drainage "Drainage" shall mean the c«mtml of surface water within the tract of land to be subdivided. Lot "Lot" shall mean an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings. Municipal Service "Municipal service" shall mean public utilities furnished by the city-or town in which a subdivision is located, such as water, sewerage, gas and electricity. Planning Board 'Planning board" shall mean a planning board established under section eighty-one A, or a board of selects acting as a planning board under said section, or a board of survey in a city or town which has accepted the provisions of the already established, and that no new lines for division of existing ownerships or for new ways are shown. In Hoene v- Board of orals_ TowD of Chatham, Barnstable Superior Court C.A. No. 4635, November 3, 1986 (Dolan, 1.). the Planning Board had endorsed a perimeter , plan showing a lot with the exact dimensions and bounds shown an an earlier plan registered with the Land Court. In finding that the Planning Board had mistakenly endorsed the plan. the court noted that as a matter of law the Planning Board should not have endorsed the perimeter plan. In H=, the landowner succeeded in protecting his property from the zoning change because the Court could not revoke the Planning Board's endorsement since the issue was not properly before the court. In k v v y, Middlesex Superior Court C.A. No. 6574, September 29. 1989 (McDaniel, J.) the Planning Commission declined to endorse a plan "ANR" which showed no new property lines. In upholding the Commission's decision not to endorse the plan, the court noted that the plan showed no division of land and therefore no need for the verification process of Section SIP. The court further stated that a perimeter plan is properly filed tinder Section 81X and not under the ANR process found in Section SIP. However, .in Costello v„Planning Board of Westport, (Bristol) Misc. Case No. 152765, 1991 (Sullivan, L), a Land Court judge concluded that perimeter plans are entitled to an ANR endorsement. In her decision the judge summarized that nothing in the statute requires the conclusion that only divisions of land which do not constitute a subdivision are entitled to ANR endorsement and that perimeter plans are entitled to an ANR endorsement. It should be noted that the cello, lwomCv and Horne cases were not appealed and hence the views of the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court are not known. The perimeter plan issue remains unsolved. A Planning Board should adopt a consistent approach to the review of perimeter plans. One ,12t Plans Ili 13looM v Q , 346 Mass. 278 (1963), the court reached the conclusion that a plan showing the division of a tract of land into two parcels where one parcel was clearly not available for_building was not a division of land into two lots which would require Planning Board approval under the Subdivision-Control Law. In Blogm, owners of a parcel of land were refused a variance to allow them to build an apartment complex. Their parcel extended more that 25 feet into a single-family zonifig district. The zoning bylaw of the town of Brookline contained the following requirement: 25 i When a boundary line between districts divides a lot in single ownership, the regulations controlling the less restricted portion of such lot shall be applicable to the entire lot, provided such lot does not extend more that 25 feet within the more restricted district. A plan was submitted to the Planning Board showing two lots. Lot A was a large parcel which only extended 24 feet into the single-family zone. The second lot. which was entirely in the single-family zone did not meet the frontage requirements of the zoning bylaw. A statement was placed on lot B that it did not conform to the Zoning Bylaw. The reason the plan was submitted to the Planning Board was to create a lot which would not be subject to the above noted zoning requirement making the lot available for apartment construction. Section 81P provides that an ANR endorsement "shall not be withheld unless such plan shows a subdivision." For purposes of the Subdivision Control Law, a "subdivision" is a "division of a tract of land into two or more lots." A "lot" is defined in Section 81L as "an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." The court determined that the plan was entitled to ANR endorsement since a statement had been placed on the plan making it clear that lot B was not available for the site of building. �• ro y I`+ eel 1 t Le+ A k•LA.Y� gains l[ Y w - � /` IrM M g�YIfA i• w i PiROVE STREET r 26 Section 81P states that the "endorsement under this section may include a statement of the reason approval is not required." Court cases have supported the concept that, where a Planning Board knows its endorsement may tend to mislead buyers of lots shown on a plan, the Planning Board may exercise its powers in a way that protects persons who will rely on the ANR endorsement. For example, in Ela= the court noted that the Planning Board could have placed thereon or have caused the applicant to place thereon a statement that the lot was not a lot which could be used for a building. Since the Planning Board has no jurisdiction to pass on zoning matters, we would suggest that Planning Boards consider the following type of statement for one lot plans where one or more of the parcels shown on the plan do not meet the frontage requirement of the Subdivision Control Law. For the purposes of the Subdivision Control Law, parcel _ cannot be used as the site for a building. If a landowner wishes to divide his land in order to convey a portion of his properly to another landowner, the following statement might be used. Parcel to be conveyed to abutting property owner and is not available as a site for a building. In Cdg nes X. PlanninaBoazd ofD icut, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 264 (1995), 'a land owner submitted a plan showing a division of land into three parcels. Two parcels shown on the plan contained a statement that the parcel was not a building lot. The third parcel contained no such statement and also did not meet the frontage requirement as specified in the zoning bylaw. The court found that, in effect, the landowner submitted a single lot plan which did not constitute a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law and concluded that the plan was entitled to an ANR endorsement because it did not show a division of land into two or more lots. In reaching this conclusion, the court made the following observations: 1. In determining whether to endorse a plan "approval not required," a Planning Board's judgment is confined to determining whether a plan shows a subdivision. 2. If a plan does not show a subdivision, a Planning Board must endorse -- the plan as not requiring reqHiring subdivision approval; 3. If the Planning Board is presented with a plan showing a division of land into two or more "lots," each of which has sufficient frontage on a way, the Planning Board can properly concern itself with whether the frontage depicted is actual or illusory. 27 f 4. If a plan shows a subdivision rather than a single lot under the Subdivision Control Law, the Planning Board can consider the adequacy of the frontage of any tot shown on the plan independent of any variance which may have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. C 'cry artes v- Plaanlc^aid of Dracut 7-2 fT�l 7-17 ISa M • • ��-wi t►Maeal • N 'War '7wa • - pr •s Maa3lL La' •�t wa M Oa r7+sr+a iaraa a •LL jaQ@k IIIU& /Ls�tT� s� •+spit. 1iUANC too 28 : CECILE ST • LAND N/F ALBERT AND AMELIA LANGO ' - Y RD. _ UN R i N 80'12'00" E 696,49' Q CC 2 �0 GREEN M � � ACRE LN � LAND N/F m Q Al T.ROWLEY S l PASQUALE RONDINELLI �L!J LOCUS ca f Ro ST ,; LOCUS MAP emu+ 00, LAND N/F MARK RONDINELLI E N O f PARCEL B >, 'K NOTE: c 0 PARCEL "B" O = AREA 7.1 4 ACRES NOT A LEGAL BUILDING LOT AT THIS TIME } o LAND N/F DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE AND IS NOT A BUILDING LOT WITHOUT _ PAUL J. FURTHER ZONING RELIEF cv DAMATO 4 : I 2 �4 O 00 5 S pp. LAND N/F JAMES P. RONDINELLI �V �J►. pp, r E N bg 10.0 QO x do p LOT 3 21,034 S.F. 31 95.; W S 6cj 19,Ofl 2 LOT 3 AND PARCEL "B" IS OWNED BY moo• `�o BEV9ALY A. RONDINELLI AND JAMES P. RONDINELLI LAND N/F p SEE DEED BOOK 5951 PG. 459 AND PLAN BOOK 286 PG. 19 HERBERT E., LUCY AND STEVEN 4 MORRIS A! L............. " W " 5 651 cJ•Ofl LAND N/f \ FEET HERBERT E. MORRIS 0' 40' 80' 120' APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION SCALE CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED PLANNING BOARD- TOWN OF A M A ACH ETT ZONED: AGRICULTUREA G WA , M SS US S r ,, �je� �( �J PREPARED SURVEY EC DANCE DIVISION OF PROPERTY DATE: � � r EPARD N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL & A A ASSACHUSETTS CHAIRMAN: TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR FOR: (OWNER) - THE PRACTICE OF LAND �t"~�N ° � �s JAMES P. RONDINELLI SURVEYI IN THE It+IARf � 211 ROWLEY STREET COMM W ALTH OF S. E, C. > SHUTE AGAWAM, MA. 033810 DATE: SCALE: 1 "-40' PLANNING BOARD ENDORSEMENT UNDER THE ,� SUBDIVISION CONTROL LAW SHOULD NOT BE p suer 9- 18-2003 CHECKED: M.E.S. CONSTRUED AS EITHER AN ENDORSEMENT OR AN I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE APPROVAL OF ZONING LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS CONFORMED WITH THE RULES C.A.D. SHEET N0. T.J.A. 1 OF 1 & REGUL TIONS OF THE REGIST OF DEED i PREP IN THIS P N DaLm EAN INC. SURVEYORS & 40 SCHOOL STR ET ENGINEERS_ WESTFIELD --- , MASSACHUSETTS I Town of Agawam ' 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 �MP Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 September 18, 2003 ZE James Rondinelli 211 Rowley Street Agawam,MA 01001zk Dear Mr. Rondinelli: At its duly called meeting held on September 18, 2003, the Agawam Planning Board voted to approve your plans under "Subdivision Control Lave Not Required" fora parcel of land located on Rowley Street. Plans drawn.by D.L. Beanl Inc. and dated 9-18-2003. h. Sincerely, AWAM PLA G BOARD 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 Planning Board, 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA 011001. To Agawam Planning Board Please be advised that the Form A plan that was filed by Rondinelli and approved by the Agawam Planning Board for a parcel of land located on Rowley Street has been recorded at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. Book , Page Signature of Applicant AGAWAM LAW DEPARTMENT MEMO Date: September 18, 2003 To: Planning Board CM From: Thomas S. Locke, City Solicitor RE: FORM A!ROWLEY STREET f RONDINELLI The Supreme Judicial Court in Bloom v. Planning Board of Brookline created an exemption for those plans depicting only one "lot". Mass. Gen. L. ch. 41, § 81 L defines °lot' as an area "used, or available for use, as the site of one ore more buildings." The plan in Bloom showed one lot with adequate frontage under the zoning by-law and another, deficient parcel, dearly labeled as such. The court reasoned that since the owner of the land had not created two lots, the Subdivision Control Law had not been triggered. In Cricones v. Planning Board of Dracut, the Appeals Court confirmed the "single lot" exception. The plaintiff showed three parcels on an ANR plan. Two were marked "not a building lot'; the other was deficient on frontage, but a variance had been issued to the plaintiffs. The court noted "if the plaintiffs plan had depicted a subdivision. . . the board could have addressed the adequacy of the frontage of any lot independent of the variance." However, since only a single lot was shown, the plan did not constitute a subdivision. The appeals court has strongly suggested that unless the plan adequately addresses"the public's right not to be misled by endorsements on recorded plans"the exemption may be withheld.This burden may be satisfied by an indication on the plan that the lot in question does not conform with the zoning regulations or that the frontage is not sufficient. The plan should " show on its face . . . that inadequate frontage brought a parcel outside the definition of a§ 81 L"lot"." I suggest the following language be placed on the Rondinelli plan. "PARCEL "B" DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE AND IS NOT A BUILDING LOT WITHOUT FURTHER ZONING RELIEF. 1 Page 1 of 6 4 346 Mass. 278; Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline; Later Citations Pages 2,78 39 Mass. Ann, EDITH S. BLOOM&others vs. PLANNING BOARD OF BROOKLINE& others. Gt.418 39 Mass. App. [Cite as Bloom v.Planning Bd. of Brookline, 346 Mass. 278] Ct.264 18 MassAnn, Norfolk. May 9, 1963.---Juty 1, 1963. Ct'40 15 Massss.Anti. Present:WILKINS, C.J., WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL,&REARDON,JJ. Q. 144 11 Mass. Ann. Ct. 148 Subdivision Control. Equity Pleading and Practice, Amendment. Words, "Lot." 10 Mass. A . t. 599 The word "Iot" as employed in the definition of"subdivision" in G. L. c. 41, § 81L, 376}'Mass. 801 means an area of land "used, or available for use, as the site of one or more 5 Mass. Apo. Ct. buildings." [283] 206 -_ 3 MmLApp. Ct. A division on a plan of a tract of land fronting on a public way into two lots, of 792 which one,Lot A, had,and the other, Lot B,did not have,the frontage required by 11Mass. App. Ct. the town's zoning by-law for a building lot,did not constitute a"subdivision" within 45 11 the subdivision control law, G. L. c. 41, §§ 81K--81GG, where the landowner submitted the plan to the chairman of the planning board, who indorsed on it, under § 81P, "approval under subdivision control law not required. Lot B does not conform with the zoning by-law," and the landowner then recorded the plan and secured the issuance of a building permit for a building on Lot A, notwithstanding that the plan was entitled "Subdivision Plan," that no notice of submission was given to the town clerk as required by §81 T, and that the plan was not submitted to the board by its chairman: the landowner recorded the plan and acted under it on the basis,in effect, that use of Lot B for building was precluded. [283-284] A judge, in passing upon a motion to amend a bill in equity to which a demurrer had been sustained, was entitled to regard the allegations of the original bill and of the other pleadings. [284--285] BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on June 19, 1962. Demurrers to the bill were sustained by Tauro, J., a motion to amend the bill was denied by Fairhurst, J., and final decrees dismissing the bill were entered by Sullivan, J. Jack H. Backman for the plaintiffs. Lewis H. Weinstein(Lawrence A. Sullivan with him)for Lawrence& others;Phillip Cowin, Town Counsel, for the Planning Board of.Brookline& others, also with him. Page 279 http://www.l awriter.net/cgi-bin/texi stweb/macasel awl+Yt+ge78mwBm enCpSKenxwwvv/s... 9/17/2003 Page2of6 -IlTTEMORE, J. This is a bill of complaint brought in the Superior Court on June 19, 1962, by more than ten taxable inhabitants of Brookline under G. L. c. 41, § 81Y, to nullify an indorsement on a recorded plan,revoke building permits, and enjoin the erection of buildings_ The defendants are(a)the planning board of Brookline(the board)and a former member who was the chairman in 1962, (b)the building commissioner and William C. Berghaus,a building inspector, (c)James Lawrence, Jr., and his two cotrustees under a will, as the owners of the land, and(d) a corporation and Albert C. Waters, Jr., its employee or agent, who, with Lawrence, are proposing to build. The plaintiffs have appealed from interlocutory decrees which sustained the demurrers of all the defendants,from the interlocutory decree which denied a motion to amend the bill and denied leave further to amend, and from the final decrees which dismissed the bill as to all the defendants. The case was heard in the Superior Court with an appeal under G. L. c. 40A, § 21 (Kolodrry v. Board ofAppeals of Brookline,post, 285), and a petition for a writ of mandamus(Kolodny v.Building Cemmr,of Brookline,post, 289)with allegations based on the same underlying facts.Facts summarized in the following paragraphs are set out in pleadings or proposed pleadings in one or another of the three cases. Owners of a parcel of land lying between Clove and Newton streets, Brookline, early in 1962 sought, and were refused, a variance to enable them to build an apartment house complex on the parcel notwithstanding that it extended more than twenty-five feet into a single residence district(fn1)Thereafter a plan was prepared entitled "Subdivision Plan of Land in Brookline... March 16, 1962." The plan(see simplification reproduced herewith)(fn2) shows a Page aso large "Lot A" with its southwesterly boundary 24.5 feet southwesterly of a zone boundary and, adjacent to the southwesterly boundary, a small parcel entitled "Lot B" with an area of 3,052 square feet and a frontage of 34.38 feet on Grove Street. Lawrence, on March 19, 1962, "exhibited"the plan to the chairman of the board, who did not submit it to the board Page 291 but indorsed it: "Brookline Planning Board, Date March 19, 1962, approval under Subdivision Control Law not required. Lot B does not conform with the Zoning By- Law.Russell Hastings,Chairman." The plan was recorded at the Norfolk registry of deeds,March 19, 1962. On March 27, 1962, the inspector,Berghaus, approved applications for, and http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/macaselaw/+Yt+q e78mwBmenCp5Kenxwwwls... 911712003 Page3 of6 issued,thirteen permits for buildings on lot A, Lawrence had not notified the town clerk of the submission of the plan as required by G.L. c.41, § 81T, as amended through St. 1960, c. 266, § L(fn3)On May 22, 1962, a new zoning by-law was adopted, pursuant to a planning board hearing of which notice was given on March 29, 1962. G. L. c. 40& § 11.(fn4) The bill in this case alleges a proposal to build an apartment house complex on a "parcel of land" under the permits which are "predicated upon a ... subdivision." It sets out the indorsement on the plan and alleges the failure to submit the plan to the board and to notify the town clerk, and that no notice of public hearing had been advertised or given and no hearing held. It alleges that the building inspector approved the applications for permits"without, power or authority"; and that the proposed builders acted without authority from the owners. The proposed substitute bill sets out in substance,inter alia,that(a)the building commissioner and the inspector knew that the permits were for the erection of buildings within a subdivision under an unapproved plan and (b) "one of said lots, as sub-divided,has only 34.38 feet frontage on a way," although the frontage required by the zoning by-law"for erection of a building on said lot is 40 feet." Section 81Y provides in its fourth paragraph: "The superior court for the county in which the land affected by Page 282 any of the provisions of the subdivision control law ties shall have jurisdiction in equity on petition of the planning board of a city or town, or of ten taxable inhabitants thereof, to review any action of any municipal board or officer of such city or town in disregard of the provisions of this section and to annul and enjoin such action,to enjoin the erection of a building in violation of this section, and otherwise to enforce the provisions of the subdivision control law and any rules or regulations lawfully adopted and conditions on the approval of a plan lawfully imposed thereunder, and may restrain by injunction violations thereof or make such decrees as justice and equity may require.No proceeding under this paragraph shall be instituted more than one year after the act or failure to act upon which such petition is based." The bill is cast primarily with reference to the following requirement of the second paragraph of§ 81Y: "In any city or town in which the subdivision control law is in effect,the board or officer, if any, having the power and duty to issue permits for the erection of buildings shall not issue any permit for the erection of a building until first satisfied that the lot on which the building is to be erected is not within a subdivision, or that a way furnishing the access to such lot as required by the subdivision control law is shown on a plan recorded or entitled to be recorded under section eighty-one X, and that any condition endorsed thereon limiting the right to erect or maintain buildings on such lot have been satisfied,or waived by the planning board. ..." The indorsement was undoubtedly placed on the plan pursuant to § 81P,as' http://www.lawriter.neticgi-bin/texi s/web/macaselaw/+Yt+ge78mwBmenCp5Kenxwww/s... 9/17/2003 X u g V-r VI v amended through St. 1961, c. 332.(fn5) . ,. �. Page 283 Section 81L defines "lot" as "an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries,used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." The definition of"subdivision" includes: "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots ... [but not if] every lot within the tract... has frontage on(a) a public way. ... Such frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then required by zoning or other ordinance or by-law, if any ... for erection of a building on such lot... [otherwise] twenty feet." 1. We assume that under § 8 1 Y a bill to correct or expunge an indorsement on a recorded plan could be maintained in some circumstances and that this is not affected by the right given by § 81BB to those aggrieved to appeal within twenty days from a decision of the board or its failure to take final action on a plan. The plaintiffs, however, do not show or suggest that there is in this case any substantive ground for such relief. The allegations show that,notwithstanding the title of the recorded plan, "subdivision," there has been no subdivision within the subdivision control law. We construe "lot" for purposes of the definition of"subdivision" in § 81L in the terms of the definition of"lot," that is, an area"used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." If the owners had proposed lot B as a lot for building, notwithstanding its deficiencies,the division of Page 284 their parcel into two lots as shown on the plan would, of course, have been a subdivision_ Board approval would have been required and presumably would have been refused unless a variance or other lawful basis for building on the lot had been shown. But the owners have recorded and acted under a plan which,with its indorsement, shows that lot B is not an area which, in the absence of further zoning action, can be built on. Their only right to act under the plan is on the construction that it is not a plan of a subdivision because of the anomalous character of lot B. In effect they have recorded a plan which disavows any claim of existing right to use lot B as a zoning by-law lot. Under such a plan, apart from the purported determination by the planning board, the building commissioner could rightly be "satisfied that the lot[A] ... is not within a subdivision" so that permits should issue under § 81Y. It is now inconsequential that the building commissioner in all likelihood would not have made such a determination in the absence of an.indorsement under § 81P. The owners and builders have received no substantive right to which they were not entitled and no substantive provision of any by-law or statute will be violated because the indorsement remains on the plan, and the permits remain outstanding. That invalidation of the permits would bar the proposed structure because of a new http://www.lawriter.neticgi-bin/texi s/web/Macaselaw/+Yt+ge78mwBmenCp5Kenxwww/s... 9/17/2003 i agv.� vx v zoning by-law is not a ground for relief under § 91Y. It is also now inconsequential that upon receipt of the plan the chairman should have submitted it to the planning;board, and.that the board-should have placed.. __. . . .. .. thereon (or should have caused the applicant to place thereon)the statement that lot B was not a lot which could be used for a building and that the plan was not a plan of a subdivision. There is no occasion to enforce the public right to have a correct indorsement on the recorded plan. No one should be misled by the existing indorsement into thinking that lot B is a lot for zoning by-law purposes. 2. The proposed substitute bill did not in terms set out the indorsement on the plan and could have been construed Page 285 as alleging a proposal to build on a lot or lots in a subdivision. The judge,however, in passing upon the issue of amendment,was entitled to regard the allegations of the original sworn bill and of the other pleadings before him. 3. As the owners'rights do not depend upon valid action by the board we need not determine the effect of the failure to give notice to the town cleric. Lack of authority in the inspector is alleged only as a legal conclusion and,were the allegation otherwise adequate,there would be doubt whether permits could be revoked on such a ground. The allegations as to lack of authority from all the trustee owners to their codwner and to the others proposing to build add nothing to the bill. 4. There is no basis for thinking that by amendment the plaintiffs could set out a good cause under§ 81Y. Interlocutory decrees affirmed Finial decrees affirmed Footnotes: 1 Art. k § 3 (b): "when a boundary line between districts divides a lot in single ownership,the regulations controlling the less restricted portion of such lot shall be applicable to the entire lot, provided such lot, does not extend more than 25 feet within the more restricted district" (Brookline zoning by-law). 2 Although the plan is not set out in any pleading, the parties at argument submitted a copy for our use. 3 "Every person submitting a definitive plan of land to the planning board of a city or town for its approval or for a determination that approval is not required shall give written notice to the clerk of such city or town by delivery or by registered mail, http://www.lawriter.netlegi-bin/texis/web/Macaselaw/+Yt+qe78mwB menCp5Kenxwww/s-.. 9/17/2003 postage prepaid,that he has submitted such a plan." 4 "No ... amendment... shall affect any permit issued ...before notice of hearing before the planning board. ..." S "Any person wishing to cause to be recorded a plan of land situated in a city or town in which the subdivision control law is in effect, who believes that his plan does not require approval under the subdivision control law, may submit his plan to the planning board of such city or town,in the manner prescribed in section eighty- one T, and, if the board finds that the plan does not require such approval, it shall, without a public hearing and without unnecessary delay endorse thereon or cause to be endorsed thereon by a person authorized by it the words 'approval under the subdivision control law not required' or words of similar import with appropriate name or names signed thereto, and such endorsement shall be conclusive on all persons. Such endorsement shall not be withheld unless such plan shows a subdivision. If the board shall determine that in its opinion the plan requires approval,it shall give written notice of its determination to the clerk of the city or town and the person submitting the plan, and such person may submit his plan for approval as provided by law and the rules and regulations of the board, or he may appeal from the determination of the board in the manner provided in section eighty- one BB. If the board fails to act upon a plan submitted under this section within fourteen days after its submission,it shall be deemed to have determined that approval under the subdivision control law is not required, and it shall forthwith make such endorsement on said plan, and on its failure to do so forthwith the city or town clerk shall issue a certificate to the same effect. The plan bearing such endorsement or the plan and such certificate, as the case may be, shall be delivered by the planning board, or in case of the certificate,by the city or town clerk,to the person submitting such plan. The planning board of a city or town which has authorized any person, other than a majority of the board,to endorse on a plan the approval of the board or to make any other certificate under the subdivision control law, shall transmit a written statement to the register of deeds and the recorder of the land court, signed by a majority of the board, giving the name of the person so authorized. The endorsement under this section may include a statement of the reason approval is not required." ®Lawriter Corporation.All rights reserved. The Casemakery" Online database is a compilation exclusively owned by Lawriter Corporation. The database is provided for use under the terms, notices and conditions as expressly stated under the online end user license agreement to which all users assent in order to access the database. http://www,lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/Macaselaw/+Yt+qe 78mwBmenCp 5Kenxwww/s... 9/17/2003 i�y a Ma ✓ 39 Mass. App. Ct. 264; Cdcones v. Planning Bd. of Dracut; Later Citations Page 48 Mass. Aan. 264 Ct. PETER CRICONES,trustee,(fnl)vs. PLANNING BOARD OF DRACUT. 124 43 Mass. 4 [Cite as Cricones v. Planning Bd. of Dracut, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 264] Q. 504 39 MassAun. No. 94 P-463. Ct, 418 Nfiddlesex. March 22, 1995.--September 22, 1995. Present:BROWN, JACOBS, &IRELAND, JJ. Subdivision Control, Approval not required,Frontage on public way,Plan,planning board. Words, "Subdivision," "Lot" A plan of land showing a division of the land into three parcels that, on the face of the plan, disavowed any claim of availability of two of the parcels for building purposes did not constitute a subdivision plan within the meaning of G. L. c. 41, § 81L: the plan was entitled to an endorsement of"approval not required" by the planning board. [265--269] CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 16, 1991. The case was heard by Margaret R Hinkle, J., on a statement of agreed facts. Judith E. Pickett for the defendant. Roland L. Milliard for the plaintiff. JACOBS, J. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the denial by the Dracut planning board of his application for an endorsement of approval not required ("ANW). A judge of that court ordered the entry of a judgment directing the board "to endorse the plaintiffs plan in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 41, [§] 81P.(fn2)The board appeals from that judgment.We affirm. Page 265 The plan submitted for ANR endorsement shows a division of the plaintiffs land in pracut into three parcels, 3-57, 3-57-1, and 3-57-2.(fn3) These parcels have a cginmon border with two parcels in Pelham,New Hampshire, owned by others. Parcels 3-57-1 and 3-57-2 do not have frontage on a way, and the plan contains notations that each is "not a building lot" and is "to be conveyed to" the owners of the adjacent New Hampshire parcel.For lot 3-57,the plan shows the proposed location of a house with access from a proposed easement across the adjacent New http://www.lawriter_neticgi-binitexi shueb/macaselaw/+MtetL%CwBmeDN35KJwwwlsvDo... 9/6/2043 i aiyt.c, vt . Hampshire parcel. The easement leads to LeBlanc Road(in Pelham,New Hampshire),which becomes Island Pond Road after crossing into Dracut. 'There it cuts across the western boundary of parcel 3-57,providing about twenty feet of frontage for the parcel in Dracut. Prior to the plaintiff s submission of the plan to the planning board, the Dracut board of appeals granted the plaintiff a variance from the applicable zoning by-law frontage requirement of 175 feet The lack of sufficient frontage was cited by the planning board as the basis for its denial of the ANR endorsement. The Superior Court judge determined that the plaintiffs plan "cannot be considered to be a subdivision plan within the meaning of[G.L. c. 41,1 § 81L,"(fn4) because parcels 3-57- Page 266 1 and 3-57-2 are not buildable lots and that the plan,therefore, is entitled to an ANR endorsement. The board argues that this determination is erroneous because the plan cannot be so endorsed if no lot depicted has adequate frontage. We conclude that the judge's decision is correct. Anyone who desires to record a plan of land in a city or town in which the subdivision control law(G.L_c. 41, §§ 81K S1GG)is in effect and believes that the plan qualifies for ANR treatment may submit it to the planning board of that city or town pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 91 P. Section 81 P provides that an ANR endorsement "shall not be with held unless such plan shows a subdivision." For purposes of the subdivision control law, a"subdivision" is defined in, G.L. c. 41, § 81L, as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots. ..." See note 4, supra A "lot" is defined as "an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings_" G.L. c.41, § 81L,inserted by St. 1953, c. 674, § 7.By expressly disavowing, on the face of the plan, any claim of availability of parcels 3-57-1 and 3-57-2 for building purposes,the plaintiff, in effect, submitted a plan of land that, notwithstanding its division into three parcels, did not constitute a subdivision under the subdivision control law because it did not represent a division of the land into two or more "lots."Bloom v.PhmningBd of Brookline, 346 Mass, 278, 283--284(1963). See Perry v.PlanningBd of Nantucket, 15 Mass. App. Ct, 144, 156(1983)("The court[in Bloom] reasoned that a division of land into two parcels, one of which clearly could not be used for building under the zoning law,was therefore not a division into two'lots' and, a fortiori,not Page 267 a subdivision"). See also Bobrowski,Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law § 14.5.4(1993) ("In Bloom v.PlanningBd ofBrooklme, the Supreme Judicial Court created an exemption for those plans depicting only one'lot"'). "[T]he public's right not to be misled by endorsements on recorded plans,"Perry v.PlanningBd of Nantucket, supra, is well protected by the fact that the plaintiff's plan not only depicts two of its three parcels as landlocked and therefore without http://www.lawriter.neticgi-bin/texxi s/web/macaselaw/+MtetLIECwBmeDN3 5KJwww/svDo... 9/6/2003 r frontage but also clearly identifies each of those parcels as "not a building lot." See id at 157. "The indication 'Not A Building Lot' is a customary method of stating the deficiency." Bobrowski, supra at 582 n.13. Given the limited extent of its function when reviewing a single lot, plan,the board's concern with the adequacy of the frontage of parcel 3-57 is misplaced. "In acting under § 81 P, a planning board's judgment is confined to determining whether a plan shows a subdivision." Smalley v.PlanningBd ofHarwich, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 599, 604(1980). See Eno&Hovey,Real Estate Law § 24.3 (3d ed. 1995) ("In exercising its powers under the subdivision control law, a planning board's first determination must be whether or not a plan presented to it shows a 'subdivision'. ... [1]f a plan does not show a'subdivision', a board may--or rather must--endorse the plan as not requiring subdivision approval, so that it may be recorded"). Had it been presented with a plan that ostensibly depicted a division of land into two or more "lots," each of which had sufficient frontage on away so as to place the plan outside of the definition of a subdivision under § 81L,the board properly could have concerned itself with whether the frontage depicted was actual or illusory. Gifford v. PlanningBd ofNantucket, 376 Mass. 801, 807--808(1978). See Corcoran v. PlanningBd of Sudbury,406 Mass_ 248, 250--251 (1989);Fox v.Planning Bd of Milton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 572, 574-575 (1987). Similarly, if the plaintiffs plan had depicted a subdivision rather than what is, in effect, a single lot under the subdivision control law,the board could have addressed the adequacy of the frontage Of Page 268 any lot independent of the variance. Seguin v.Planning Bd of Upton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 374, 375-376(1992).(fn5) We do not share the board's concern that an ANR endorsement, of itself, imparts "buildable lot" status to parcel 3-57. "An endorsement under §81P does not mean that the lots within the endorsed plan are buildable lots." Lee v.Board ofAppeals of Harwich, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 148, 152(1981). See Smalley v.Planning Bd of Harwich, supra at 603--604;Shea v.Board ofAppeals of Lexington, 35 Mass. App. Ct_ 519, 522(1993). Any lot depicted on an endorsed plan remains subject to all pertinent regulatory provisions other than the subdivision control law. See Corcoran v.Planning Bd of Sudbury, 406 Mass. at 251-252. As contended by the plaintiff, an ANR endorsement may serve merely to permit the plan to be recorded, preliminary to the sale of the unbuildable parcels to the owners of the abutting land. See Smalley v.Planning Bd of Harwich, supra at 604; G. L. c. 41, § 81X(regulating the recordation of plans of land in municipalities in which the subdivision control law is in force). See also SW Investors(Delaware), Inc. v.Planning Bd of Tisbury,.18 Mass. App. Ct 408,411(1984). Moreover, in the circumstances of a single lot plan with frontage on a public way,there is no occasion for concern with the statutory objective of the subdivision control law of"regulating the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to the several lots therein. ..." G. L. c. 41, § 81M, inserted by St. 1953, c. 674, § 7. Page http://www.lawriter.net/cgi-bin/texis/web/macaselaw/+MtetLHiCwBmeDN35KJwww/svDo... 9/6/2003 rage 4 or 5 269 There is no merit to the board's contention That the judge failed to exercise independent judgment. The case was submitted for decision on stipulated facts and accompanying documentary exhibits which are reproduced in our record. Accordingly, we are able to review the case without reliance on any factual "findings" contained in the judge's decision. Judgment affirmed Page 270 APPENDIX. Footnotes: 1 The plaintiff is trustee of the Orchard Realty Trust. 2 General Laws c. 41, § 81P, as appearing in St. 1963, c. 363, § 1, provides in pertinent part: "Any person wishing to cause to be recorded a plan of land situated in a city or town in which the subdivision control law is in effect, who believes that his plan does not require approval under the subdivision control law, may submit his plan to the planning board of such city or town in the manner prescribed in section eighty- one T, and, if the board finds that the plan does not require such approval, it shall forthwith, without a public hearing, endorse thereon or cause to be endorsed thereon by a person authorized by it the words'approval under the subdivision control law not required' or words of similar import. ... Such endorsement shall not be withheld unless such plan shows a subdivision. ..." 3 A simplified version of the plan is set out in the appendix- 4 General Laws c. 41, § 81L, provides in pertinent part(as amended through St. 1965, c. 61): "Subdivision' shall mean the division of a tract of land into two or more lots and shall include resubdivision, and,when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdivision or the land or territory subdivided;provided, however, that the division of a tract of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law if, at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on(a)a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way, or(b) a way shown on a plan theretofore approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision control law, or(c) a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having,in the opinion of the planning board, sufficient width, suitable http://www.lawriter.net/egi-bin/texi s/web/macaselaw/+MtetLI-liCwBmeDN3 5KJwww/svDo... 9/6/2003 rage:) or :) 4 grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby, and for the installation of municipal services to serve such land and the buildings erected or to be erected thereon. Such frontage shall be of at least such distance as is then required by zoning or other ordinance or by-law, if any, of said city or town for erection of a building on such lots and if no distance is so required, such frontage shall be of at least twenty feet." 5 Sequin v.Nwining Bd. of Upton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 375,treats a plan showing a division of land into two parcels, one of which did not meet the frontage requirement of the applicable zoning by-law, as showing a subdivision and thus requiring planning board approval. Apparently, nothing on the submitted plan indicated that the parcels could not be used for building,while in the case before us there are clear statements on the face of the plan that two of the parcels are not buildable. Similarly, in Bloom v.PLwvdngBd ofBrookline, 346 Mass. at 284,the plan in question "show[ed]that lot B [one of the two parcels depicted] is not an area which .__ can be built on." The Bloom court also noted that"[i]f the owners had proposed lot B as a lot for building, notwithstanding its deficiencies,the division of their parcel into two lots as shown on the plan would, of course, have been a subdivision."Id at 283--284. ®Lawriter Corporation.All rights reserved. The Casemakerlm Online database is a compilation exclusively owned by Lawriter Corporation.The database is provided for use under the terms, notices and conditions as expressly stated under the online end user license agreement to which all users assent in order to access the database. http J/www.lawriter,nedcgi-bin/texi s/web/macaselaw/+MtetLHiCwBmeDN3 5KJwww/svDo... 9/6/2003 .y K Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 � p Tel. 4137786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 September 18, 2003 James Rondinelli 211 Rowley Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Mr. Rondinelli: At its duly called meeting held on September 18, 2003, the Agawam Planning Board voted to approve your plans under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for a parcel of land located on Rowley Street. Plans drawn by D.L. Beanp Inc. and dated 9-18-2003. Sincerely, AWAM PL G BOARD Please he advised that failure to record the plan within six(o) months and provide proof of recording will negate the action of the Board. Detach on dotted line and return to the Agawam Planning Board, 36 Main Street,Agawam, MA 011001. To Agawam Planning Board Please be advised that the Form A plan that was filed by Rondinelli and approved by the Agawam Planning Board for a parcel of land located on Rowley Street has been recorded at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. Book 330 , Page 6 y Signature of Applicant ' Richard C. Morassi Attorney at Law 206 Maynard Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Telephone(413)789-9970 Fax(413)789-9350 OCTOBER 1, 2003 TO AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD RE: RONDINELLI, 221 ROWLEY STREET DEAR PLANNING BOARD: ENCLOSED IS DULY COMPLETED FORM REGARDING PLAN RECORDE7? YESTERDAY, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MATTER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU. SINCERELY YOURS, A�k&"444 RICHARD C. MORASSI