ZBA Decision Grove Ave 2021-06-10
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PERMIT DECISION
pg. 1
DATES PROJECT INFORMATION
Submitted 04/20/2021 Owner
Name/Address
Pat Melnik Sr, Trustee
Beaver Brook Nominee Trust
110 King St,
Northampton
MA 01060
Hearing 05/27/2021 Applicant Name/
Address (if different)
Pat Melnik Sr, Trustee
Beaver Brook Nominee Trust
& Raul and Farrah Matta
110 King St
Northampton
MA 01060
Extension Applicant Contact josephszawlowski@melniklawoffices.com 413-584-6750
Hearing Closed 06/10/2021 Site Address - Grove Ave
Leeds MA 01053
Decision 06/10/2021 Site Assessor Map ID 052-012 B5859 P6
Zoning District Urban Residential A
Filed with
Clerk
06/17/2021 Permit Type Appeal of Building Commissioner’s Decision (40A §8)
Appeal
Deadline
07/07/2021 Project Description Frontage for Building Lot
An appeal of this decision by the Zoning Board may be made by any person within 20 days after the date of the filing
of this decision with the City Clerk, as shown. Appeals by any aggrieved party must be pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A,
Section 17 as amended and may be made to the Hampshire Superior Court with a certified copy of the appeal sent to
the City Clerk of the City of Northampton.
Plan Sheets/Supporting Documents by Map ID including:
Exhibit A Washington Heights Plan 1908, LeBlanc v Board of Appeals Danvers, 32 Mass Apt Ct. 760
Tax Maps, Exhibit Maps
BOARD MEMBER PRESENT FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAIN/NO COUNT VOTE TALLY
(Favor-Opposed)
David Bloomberg, Chair ☐ ☐
Sara Northrup, Vice Chair ☐ ☐
Elizabeth Silver ☐ ☐
Maureen Scanlon ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Bob Riddle ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 3-0 To Deny Appeal/
Uphold Decision of
Building Commissioner
APPLICABLE
ZONING
APPROVAL CRITERIA /BOARD FINDINGS
2.1 The Zoning Board of Appeals Voted 3-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Building Commissioner’s
determination that there was no frontage to serve this lot and therefore denied the application for a
building permit for a single family house lot. The Board made its determination after hearing the
following from the applicant:
1. The applicant argued that frontage existed from the end of the public way as measured by the
width of the public way. Adequate access for emergency vehicles would be on the 10’ wide public
bicycle path which is the only improved portion of public way that abuts the subject parcel.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PERMIT DECISION
pg. 2
2. The applicant argued that the zoning was silent on whether the City counted frontage at the end of
the street and therefore it could be measured at the end regardless of the fact the city consistently
did not interpret frontage to include measuring from the end of the way.
3. Though the applicant also argued that alternatively frontage could be obtained from the paper
street as recorded from survey plans of 1908, the Board determined that was not the request
made & presented to the Building Commissioner on which the denial was made and from which
the applicant was seeking relief. (For this argument, the applicant, solely relied on LeBlanc v. Board
of Appeals. The Board cited numerous other reported court decisions that found that frontage on
an unimproved paper street was not sufficient for a lot to be buildable)
And upon evaluating the following information from staff and abutters the Board also considered the
following:
1. The Zoning Ordinance definition of frontage: A. A public way or a way which the City Clerk certifies
is maintained and used as a public way; or B. A way shown on a previously approved subdivision
plan which has been constructed to the standards required when subdivision approval was
granted; or C. A way that predates subdivision control that has, in the Planning Board's opinion,
suitable width, grades, and construction adequate and reasonable for vehicular traffic, including
emergency vehicles and snow removal vehicles, and the installation of utilities.. The Board noted
that none of these criteria had been met.
2. The public street ends 37’ south of the appellant’s locus.
3. The City consistently interprets frontage being measured along the way and not at the butt end of
the way. The Board also noted that the fee interest in the road would appear to be held by owners
along the east and west of the road and not the north.
4. Emery v Crowley, 371 Mass 489. 494 197 defines frontage along the edge of the way and not
across its width.
5. Various Massachusetts legal standards established in caselaw interpreting frontage, vital access
and adequacy of the way as referenced in staff memos and by abutters available in the record
(Coolidge v Construction Co. Inc. v PB of Andover 7 lcr 75 (1999) misc case no. 238169, Perry v PB of
Nantucket, 15 mass. app. ct 144 1983 Hutchinson v PB of Hingham 23 mass app. ct 416 1987; Shea v board of
appeals Lexington 35 mass app ct 519 523)
In its determination to uphold the Building Commissioner’s decision, the Board noted the high bar to
overturn the Building Commissioner’s decision was based on the faith of and presumption that the
Building Commissioner’s experience and knowledge of the zoning and legal standards leads to such
decisions by the Commissioner. Further, the Board acknowledged that the appropriate and available
alternative path forward for the applicant to create frontage was through the Planning Board
subdivision process. The rules and regulations regarding the subdivision of land are under the Planning
Board’s jurisdiction, and Planning Board review would ensure that necessary standards of public safety
would be met in creating approved access to the locus.
Minutes Available at WWW.NorthamptonMa.Gov
I, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Zoning Board certify that this is an accurate and true decision made by the Planning
Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk and that a copy of
this decision has been mailed to the Owner, Applicant.