16C-026 S213,t34
09 Sb O£
_�...� 13.3.7 Si Apwi
O
Ooz o ar oor o�
S -_ -- . (3 7 OtYN - - -- O OS
S2JO edfS ONV7 7 VNO /SS3106 1G 3S1S193 6 o pet n
'ONI S31 VIOOSSV ONLY NO1b.� Q 6I y tr
LEI �? 2/390100 H "`�
tia
S7t� l3 •( Ob'1 'V' 3N.:rai .� 337170S •�«,,,,
`
80-1 O3dVd32id
S113v7HO t SSVIN `NOl dW t7'k.
NI ONb'7 dO Nt>7d 7j`/
Mc/ NO&I 13S •
1 N/Od O3)r2�VWNn
Nrd No2dr ONllO3 O
- 4 N3037 -
f1.
1•
1VA 07i.
2
y
. SSVW
02ib`O8 ONINNb7d NO1dINSYN1dON
^ O32flnb3�1 1 ON Mt/ 7 7Ofj1 NOO
MGL 40A §6 p. 4
Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements of a zoning ordinance or by -law shall
not apply to a lot for single and two - family residential use which at the time of recording or
endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land,
conformed to then existing requirements and had less than the proposed requirement buf at least five
thousand square feet of area and fifty feet of frontage. Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard or
depth requirement of a zoning ordinance or by -law shall not apply for a period of five years from its
effective date or for five years after January first, nineteen hundred and seventy -six, whichever is later,
to a lot for single and two family residential use, provided the plan for such lot was recorded or
endorsed and such lot was held in common ownership with any adjoining land and conformed to the
existing zoning requirements as of January first, nineteen hundred and seventy -six, and had less area,
frontage, width, yard or depth requirements than the newly effective zoning requirements but
contained at least seven thousand five hundred square feet of area and seventy -five feet of frontage,
and.provided that said five year period does not commence priorto January first, nineteen hundred and
seventy -six, and provided further that the provisions of this sentence shall not apply to more than three
of such adjoining lots held in common ownership. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be
construed to prohibit a lot being built upon, if at the time of the building, building upon such lot is not
prohibited by the zoning ordinances or by -laws in effect in a city or town.
§ 350 -9.4. Single -lot exemption for single- and two - family use.
Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements of this chapter shall not apply to a
vacant lot for single- and two - family residential use, which:
A. Has at least 5,000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage; and
B. Is in an area zoned for single- or two - family use (A special permit must be obtained if one is
required.); and
C. Conformed to existing zoning requirements when the lot was legally created, if any; and
D. Is in separate ownership prior to the City Council vote which made the lot nonconforming, and has
maintained its separate identity.
•
•
Planning - Decision City of Northampton
Hearing No.: PLN -2010 -0039 Date: May 14, 2010
APPLICATION TYPE SUBMISSION DATE.
PB Special Permit with Intermediate 4/20/2010
Applicant's Name: Owner's Name: ,
NAME NAME
City of Northampton Cordi Bean, Laurence Bean, Susan Libby et a
ADDRESS .ADDRESS
210 Main Street clo Bob Spence
5 East Pleasant Street
TOV.N STATE ZIP CODE TOWN STATE ZIP CODE
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 AMHERST MA 01002
PHONE NO FAX ND. PHONE ND.. FAX NO.
EMAIL ADDRESS. EMAIL ADDRESS
Site Information: Surveyor's Name:
STREET NO SITE ZC COMPANY NAME_
209/0 SPRING ST URA/WSP/WP
'TOWN ACTION TAKEN ADDRESS
NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 Approved With Conditions
MAP. BLOCK LOT. MAP DATE SECTION OF BYLAW
16C 025 001 Chpt. 350 -10.5: Open Space Residential TOWN STATE ZIP CODE
B. oe Pa3e. Development
2076 256 PHONE NO FAX NO
EMAIL ADDRESS
NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK
TWO LOT OPEN SPACE RES DEVELOPMENT
Other Deed books: 2058/225 4316/51 9119/199
HARDSHIP 1 ��
CDNDETION OF APPROVAL LTV
1) To comply with the traffic mitigation requirements in 11.6 2B and prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for either of the two new lots, a payment of 52,000 for the one additional lot not allowed
by -right shall be made to mitigate traffic impacts for the new lots.
2. }Prior to issuance of a building permit for either of the lots a site plan shall be submitted far review
by staff with Planning Board Chair or designee to approve location of common driveway and ensure
that the common driveway meets all the criteria in the zoning for width, pull offs, grades etc. Further,
the plans must show that runoff from the driveway is directed on site and will not flow into Spring
Street.
3.) Prior to issuance of a BUILDING PERMIT, the easements for maintenance of the driveway shall be
recorded at the register of deeds.
4. )Prior to issuance of a BUILDING PERMIT or transfer of title of the lots, the owner must dedicate the
proposed open space to the city as offered.
5.) if the grades for the driveway are 3% or greater within 100' of the street , this portion must be
paved.
FINDINGS.
The Planning Board approved the application for a special permit for a two -lot open space cluster to create 2 single family house lots
based upon the plans and information submitted with the application.
In granting the permit, the Board found that the following required elements had been met:
(1) The requested use protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses. If applicable, this shall include provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers and preservation of views, light, and air; and
(2) The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent
streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. The project will consist of one common driveway to serve both lots.
The project will mitigate traffic through payment in lieu of $2,000
(3) The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings
GeoTMS® 2010 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc.
Chapter 111, Section 127P. "Whenever a person has submitted a subdivision plan, or a
preliminary subdivision plan which is followed within seven months by a definitive plan, or a plan
referred to in section eighty -one P of chapter forty-one, the land shown on such plan shall be
governed by provisions of the state environmental code, or of the provisions of local board of
health regulations which differ from said code, which are in effect at the time of first submission of
said plan...: If such plan is approved, .. such provisions shall apply for -a period of three years
from the date of the endorsement of such approval or from the endorsement that approval under
the subdivision control law is not required."
1. The filing of a perimeter plan does not allow a developer to submit a subdivision plan at a later
date and still be governed by the health regulations that were in effect at the time of submission of
the perimeter plan. Independence Park, Inc. v. Board of Health of Barnstable, 25 Mass. App. Ct.
133 (1987).
B. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Chapter 41, Section 81Q. "Once a definitive plan has been submitted to a planning board, and
written notice has been given to the city or town clerk ..., the rules and regulations governing such
plan shall be those in effect relative to subdivision control at the time of the submission of such
plan. When a preliminary plan ... has been submitted to a planning board, and written notice of the
submission of such plan has been given to the city or town clerk, such preliminary plan and the
definitive plan evolved therefrom shall be governed by the rules and regulations relative to
subdivision control in effect at the time of the submission of the preliminary plan, provided that the
definitive plan is duly submitted within seven months from the date on which the preliminary plan
was submitted.
to
a. There is no basis in the language or history of the Zoning Act for permitting two zoning
freezes. The filing of an approval not required plan does not allow a landowner to submit
a definitive subdivision plan at a later date and still be governed by the zoning bylaw in
effect at the time of the submission of the approval not required plan. Wolk v. Planning
Board of Stoughton, 4 Mass. App. ,Ct. 812 (1976).
4. Although it is possible that the Legislature intended to afford freeze protection only to approval
not required plans that are recorded in due course, nothing in the Zoning Act requires recording of
a plan as a prerequisite for a zoning freeze. Long v. Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 32 Mass.
App. Ct. 232 (1992).
5. Where a landowner files an approval not required plan identical to one previously endorsed, a
planning board does not have to endorse the new plan while the three year freeze period remains
in effect from the prior endorsement and any subsequent submission or endorsement of an
identical approval not required plan does not extend the three year use protection. Kelly v. Uhlir,
(Sullivan, J.) Middlesex, Misc. Case No. 162655, (July, 1993).
C. PERIMETER PLANS
A perimeter plan is a plan of land showing existing property lines, with no new lines drawn
indicating a division of land and is usually filed so that the property owner can obtain the three
year use freeze afforded approval not required plans.
1. Perimeter plans are entitled to ANR endorsement. Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Planning Board
of West Bridgewater, 64 Mass. App. CT. 902 (2005).
D. SITE PLANS
Site plan is a regulatory scheme whereby a mandatory review by a local board is required before
the issuance of a building permit for a use that is permitted as a matter of right in the zoning bylaw.
1. The term "special permit" in mgl, c. 40A, s. 6, does not encompass the term "site plan
approval" as used in a local zoning bylaw so that an approved site plan did not freeze the
applicable provisions of the zoning bylaw. Towermarc Canton Limited Partnership v. Town of
Canton, Norfolk, Misc. Case No. 131947, (November, 1989).
III. RULES AND REGULATIONS PROTECTION
A. BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATIONS
9
federal agency or a court, a moratorium on construction, the issuance of permits or utility
connections."
B. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
Chapter 40A, Section 6. " ... the use of the land shown on [an approval not required plan] ... shall
be governed by the applicable provisions of the zoning ... for a period of three years from the date
of endorsement ... that approval ... is not required ...."
1. Protection afforded approval not required plans extends only to use and not to other applicable
provisions of the zoning bylaw or ordinance.
a. Plan does not protect land from more stringent parking requirements, density
regulations or requirements for site plan approval. Bellows Farms v. Building Inspector of
Acton, 364 Mass. 253 (1973); Perry v. Building Inspector of Nantucket, 4 Mass. App.
Ct. 467 (1976).
b. New regulations may be enforced which do not amount, individually or collectively, to
a practical prohibition of the use. Cape Ann Land Development Corp. v. Gloucester, 371
Mass. 19 (1976); Cicatelli v. Board of Appeals of Wakefield, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 799
(2003).
c. Three year grandfather provision protects uses permitted as of right as well as uses
permitted by special permit. Miller v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 923
(1979); Samson v. San-Land Development Corp., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 977 (1984).
2. It is unclear whether a community can amend its zoning bylaw and require a landowner to
obtain a special permit for a use that was permitted as a matter of right at the time of the
submission of the approval not required plan.
a. In Cape Ann Land Development Corp. v. Gloucester, 371 Mass. 19 (1976), the court
held that Cape Ann was required to obtain a special permit but warned the special permit
granting authority that they could not decline to grant the special permit on the basis that
the land would be used for the protected use but could impose through the special permit
process reasonable conditions which would not amount to a practical prohibition of the
use.
b. In Marashlian v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1966),
the court did not disturb a Superior Court judge's fmding that a landowner was not
required to obtain a special permit.
3. The protection afforded an approval not required plan does not authorize combination zoning
protections in a "piggy- back" fashion.
8
4. There is nothing in the Subdivision Control Law requiring approval of a preliminary plan as a
precondition to the approval of a definitive plan. Trimount v. City of Taunton, 8 LCR 439 (2000).
5. The freeze protection is not contingent on the approval of a subdivision plan or the success in
the appeal of a disapproved subdivision plan and although this interpretation has the effect of
rewarding sham submissions of plans solely submitted to secure a zoning freeze, the remedy is the
Legislature. Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc. v. Town of Westford, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 924
(2004).
6. The subdivision plan protection is a build protection and protects the issuance of a building
permit from all zoning changes for an eight year period.
a. Owner of a subdivision lot that is conveyed into separate ownership after the effective
date of any increased zoning requirement must obtain the necessary building permit before
the expiration of the eight year definitive plan protection period. Wright v. Board of
Appeals of Falmouth, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 409 (1987); Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of
Wareham, 415 Mass. 329 (1993).
b. A lot area and frontage variance to allow construction of a single - family dwelling on a
nonconforming lot after the expiration of the definitive plan protection period was not
authorized by the Zoning Act. Hardship was solely due to the failure of the owner of the
lot to construct the house on the undersized lot before the statutory protection from the
zoning change ran out. Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329
(1993).
7. If the land shown on a definitive plan is entitled to the eight year zoning freeze, then a planning
board's subsequent rescission of it approval of the definitive plan by operation of an automatic
rescission provision in a performance covenant executed by the developer will not terminate the
eight year zoning protection. Heritage Park Development Corporation v. Town of Southbridge,
424 Mass. 71 (1997).
8. The land shown on the subdivision plan is protected for eight years and a landowner is entitled
to submit a different plan for approval within the eight year period. Massachusetts Broken Stone
Company v. Town of Weston, 430 Mass. 637 (2000).
9. If subdivision plan is disapproved and applicant submits an amended plan within a reasonable
time period that addresses the reasons for disapproval then the zoning protection will continue to
apply to the land that is the subject of the plan. Krafchuk v. Planning Board of Ipswich, 453
Mass. 517 (2009).
10. Certain moratoriums affecting subdivision plans will extend the zoning protection period.
a. Chapter 40A, Section 6. " ... [the zoning protection] ... shall be extended by a period
equal to the time which a city or town imposes or has imposed upon it by a state, a
7
II. PLAN PROTECTION
A. SUBDIVISION PLANS
Chapter 40A, Section 6. "If a definitive plan, or a preliminary plan followed within seven months
by a definitive plan, is submitted ..., the land shown on such plan shall be governed by the
applicable provisions of the zoning ... by -law ... in effect at the time of submission ... for eight
years from the date of the endorsement of ... approval ...."
1. The above provision is a direct and specific legislative statement that a subdivision plan is to be
governed by the bylaw in effect when the plan is filed and being processed under the Subdivision
Control Law. Doliner v. Planning Board of Millis, 349 Mass. 691 (1965).
2. By filing a preliminary or definitive subdivision plan even after the public hearing notice has been
published in a newspaper, but before a town meeting vote, a landowner can protect his land from
future zoning changes.
a. A proposed bylaw was not in effect when the applicant's preliminary plan was
submitted to the planning board since the bylaw had not been adopted by town meeting.
Ward & Johnson v. Planning Board of Whitman, 343 Mass. 466 (1962)
b. A preliminary plan filed on the same day as town meeting vote protected the land
shown on the plan from a zoning change. Robrik Associates v. Planning Board of the
Town of Dartmouth, Bristol, Misc. Case No. 122049, (April, 1989); Santoro v. Duhan,
Worcester, C.A. No. 87 -2343, (November, 1987).
c. In determining what zoning will apply to a subdivision plan, the key date is the date the
zoning proposal is adopted and not the date of the planning board's public hearing notice
on the proposed zoning change. Lavoie v. Building Inspector of Ludlow, 346 Mass. 274
(1963): Livoli v. Planning Board of Marlborough, 347 Mass. 330 (1964); Chira v.
Planning Board of Tisbury, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (1975).
3. A preliminary plan will protect the land shown on such plan from a future zoning change
provided a definitive plan is submitted within seven months from the submission of the preliminary
plan.
a. In order to qualify for zoning protection, a preliminary plan must be submitted which
complies substantially with the definition of a preliminary plan defined in mgl, c. 41, s.
81L. Livolvi v. Planning Board of Marlborough, 347 Mass. 330 (1964).
6
Chapter 40A, Section 6. "Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements of a
zoning ordinance or by -law shall not apply for a period of five years from its effective date or for
five years after January first, nineteen hundred and seventy -six, whichever is later, to a lot for
single or two- family residential use, provided the plan for such lot was recorded or endorsed and
such lot was held in common ownership with any adjoining land and conformed to the existing
zoning requirements as of January first, nineteen hundred and seventy -six, and had less area,
frontage, width, yard or depth requirements than the newly effective ming requirements but
contained at least seven thousand five hundred square feet of area and seventy -five feet of
frontage, and provided that said five year period does not continence prior to January first,
nineteen hundred and seventy -six, and provided further that the provisions of this sentence shall
not apply to more that three of such adjoining lots held in common ownership."
1. The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of section 6 providing the common lot protection
was inserted into the Zoning Act in 1979. See st. 1979, c. 106.
2. The limits of the common lot zoning protection are as follows:
a. The five year grandfather protection runs from the effective date of the increased zoning
requirement.
b. The zoning protection extends only to increases in lot area, frontage, width, yard or
depth requirements for single and two - family use.
c. The zoning protection is only applicable to not more than three adjoining lots.
3. The criteria that must be met to qualify for the common lot protection are as follows: Baldiga v.
Zoning Board of Uxbridge, 395 Mass. 829 (1985).
a. The lot must be shown on a plan that is recorded or endorsed before the effective date
of the increased zoning requirement.
b. The lot must have at least 7,500 square feet of area, and at least 75 feet of frontage.
c. The lot must meet the zoning requirements that were in effect as of January 1, 1976
d. The lot must have been held in common ownership with adjoining land at the time of the
increased zoning requirements.
4. The grandfather protection applies to the first three lots for which protection is sought and lot
does not have to be in common ownership at the time of the building permit application. Marinelli
v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255 (2003).
5. Because the Zoning Act does not define frontage, the court will look to applicable town bylaw
for a definition. Marinelli v. Board of Appeals of Stoughton, 440 Mass. 255 (2003).
5
6. A road is a substantial physical barrier which, for practical purposes, prevents use of the two
parts of the property as a unit. Dowling v. Board of Health of Chilmark, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 547
(1990).
7. No merger where body of water separated lots. Heavey v. Board of Appeals of Chatham, 58
Mass. App. Ct. 401 (2003).
8. No mxger of lots where a single - family structure exists on each lot at the time of the zoning
change. Adams v. Peterson, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 782 (1994); Dykens v. Gordon, 6 LCR 342
(1998).
9. Lots that are separately held at the time of the zoning change merge when they came into
common ownership after the zoning change.
a. Separately owned lots at the time of the zoning change merged into one lot under the
merger doctrine when they were subsequently purchased by one owner. Preston v. Board
of Appeals of Hull, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 236 (2001).
b. Even if a lot was created by variance and placed into separate ownership, the right to
build on that lot will be lost if the lot is subsequently purchased by an adjacent landowner.
Asack v. Board of Appeals of Westwood, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 733 (1999).
10. There appears to be no authority supporting the proposition that when an owner of a
nonconforming lot entitled to grandfathered status acquires an adjacent nonconforming lot not
entitled to such protection, and then merges the two lots, this merger somehow voids the
protected status of the first lot. Learoyd v. Thurston, (Fenton, C.J.) Essex, Misc. Case No.
125271, (December, 1990).
11. Under the principle that adjacent lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a
single lot for zoning purposes so as to minimize nonconformities with the dimensional requirements
of the zoning bylaw, a landowner is not at liberty to separate them with the expectation that a
building could then be constructed. Wells v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Billerica, 68 Mass. App.
Ct. 726 (2007).
12. Case raises question but court did not decide whether back to back lots which do not meet
frontage requirements merge where merger will not make locus less conforming because lot
frontages are on two separate streets. Fitch v. Board of Appeals of Concord, 55 Mass. App. Ct.
748 (2002).
B. COMMON LOT PROTECTION
4
8. A restriction imposed by a planning board, when approving a subdivision plan, prohibiting
building on a lot for three years as permitted under c.41, s.81U of the Subdivision Control Law
does not eliminate the separate lot zoning protection. Chamseddine v. Zoning Board of Appeal of
Taunton, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 305 (2007).
B. MERGER THEORY
Substandard building lots must be combined to form one lot that will meet or more closely
approximate the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of a local zoning bylaw.
1. In the absence of specific zoning provisions defining a "lot" in terms of sources of title or
assessors' plans, the Supreme Judicial Court has consistently held that adjoining parcels may and,
indeed, in certain instances, must be considered one lot for zoning purposes. Heald v. Zoning
Board of Appeals of Greenfield, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 286 (1979).
2. Landowner cannot combine four substandard lots to create two substandard lots meeting the
minimum state requirements but below current zoning requirements. Landowner must combine all
four lots to create one protected lot. Burke v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Harwich, 38 Mass.
App. Ct. 957 (1995).
3. In determining separate ownership, the court will look to the most recent instrument of record
prior to the effective date of the zoning change from which the exemption is sought. Adamowicz v.
Ipswich, 395 Mass. 757 (1985); Carciofi v. Board of Appeals of Billerica, 22 Mass. App. Ct.
926 (1986).
a. A lot will not be considered separately held if the landowner has the power to sell,
transfer or dispose of the adjoining lot. Conveyance may establish separate ownership but
not separate dominion and control. Planning Board of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App.
Ct. 689 (1989); Affirmed, 406 Mass. 1008 (1990); DiStefano v. Town of Stoughton, 36
Mass. App. Ct. 642 (1994).
b. "Checkerboarding" is a device whereby an owner conveys title to lots in a subdivision
to related persons in such a manner so that no adjoining lots are owned by the same
person. The purpose of this conveyancing maneuver is to make all the conveyed lots
eligible for the separate lot protection. "It is highly doubtful that sham conveyances to
relatives accomplish the desired result." Lee v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 11 Mass.
App. Ct. 148 (1981).
4. Two lots which come together only at a point are not adjoining lots for the purposes of the
separate lot protection. Sturges v. Chilmark, 380 Mass. 246 (1980).
5. Two lots which adjoin each other for approximately 13 feet were considered adjoining lots.
Clark v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Nahant, 338 Mass. 473 (1959).
3
d. Was the lot separately described and separately held from any adjoining land at the
time the more restrictive zoning requirement took effect?
3. The separate lot protection extends to increases in lot area, frontage, width, depth or yard
requirements for single and two- family use. Sieber v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Wellfleet, 16
Mass. App. Ct. 985 (1983).•
a. An amendment requiring that land outside the municipality could not be used in
determining minimum lot area was treated as an amendment increasing the minimum lot
area requirement. Boulter Brothers Construction Company, Inc. v. Zoning Board of
Appeals of Norfolk, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 283 (1998).
b. An amendment changing the definition of street or way can result in an increase in the
minimum frontage requirement. Cotty v. Parks, 7 LCR 185 (1999).
c. An amendment increasing the minimum buildable area requirement for a lot was
considered an amendment increasing the minimum lot area requirement. Schofield v.
Tolosko, (Cauchon, J.) Essex, Misc. Case No. 153570, (April, 1992).
4. The separate lot protection only applies to vacant land. Willard v. Board of Appeals of
Orleans, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 15 (1987).
a. A lot was not eligible for separate lot protection where a single family structured had
been demolished some twenty three years prior to the request for a building permit. Dial
Away Co., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Auburn, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 165 (1996).
b. A lot was entitled to separate lot protection where there was a structure on the lot prior
to zoning but at the time zoning was enacted the lot was vacant. Aldrich v. Board of
Appeals ofNahant, 6 LCR 3 (1998).
5. The Zoning Act does not expressly protect undersized non-residential lots. Defelice v.
Scigliano, (Kilborn, J.) Middlesex, Misc. Case Nos. 147228 and 153998, (March, 1992).
6. A lot that was once buildable due to local bylaw exemption from minimum lot size requirements
remained buildable after the repeal of that local exemption as it still qualified for the Section 6
separate lot protection. Rourke v. Rothman, 448 Mass. 190 (2007).
7. A lot shown on a plan recorded in the Land Court in 1925 with frontage on an unconstructed
way was entitled to the separate lot protection of the Zoning Act where the landowner conceded
that he must first construct the way before obtaining a building permit. The local zoning bylaw
contained a definition of street that was similar to the types of ways noted in the definition of
"Subdivision" found in mgl, c. 41, s. 81L. Since the plan had the status of an approved plan
pursuant to mgl, c. 41, s. 81FF, the way shown on the plan was a way that had been previously
approved under the Subdivision Control Law. LeBlanc v. Board of Appeals of Danvers, 32
Mass. App. Ct. 760 (1992).
2
Conttlwnhtltt Of aCs'ar u ttt"s•
"r = �+ 5 �
DEPARTMENT T t F HOUSING &
; =° COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
L- Pick Go- •zmor Goy: esaOr 4 I_n Brct__ LTna ic,_rera
GRANDFATHERED LOTS & PLAN PROTECTIONS
November 30, 2009
Prepared By Donald J. Schmidt
This outline gives limited information relative to zoning protections for lots and subdivision plans and is intended
only for informational and reference purposes. When a question of legal interpretation arises, local officials should
always seek the advice of their municipal counsel.
LOT PROTECTION
A. SEPARATE LOTS
Chapter 40A, Section 6. "Any increase in area, frontage, width, yard or depth requirements of a
zoning ordinance or bylaw shall not apply to a lot for single and two- family residential use which at
the time of recording or endorsement, whichever occurs sooner was not held in common
ownership with any adjoining land, conformed to then existing requirements and had less than the
proposed requirements but at least five thousand square feet of area and fifty feet of frontage."
1. Purpose is to protect a once valid lot from being rendered unbuildable for certain residential
purposes assuming the lot meets modest area and frontage requirements. Sturges v. Chilmark,
380 Mass. 246 (1980).
2. Questions to ask in determining separate lot protection.
a. Does the lot have at least 5,000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage?
b. Is the lot located in an area zoned for single or two - family use?
c. Did the lot conform to existing zoning when legally created?
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 www.mass.gov /dhcd
Boston. Massachusetts 02114 617.573.1100
•
ZONING
350 Attachment 1.8
City of Northampton
Table of Use, Dimensional and Density Regulations
WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION (WSP)
Site Plan Approval
Required by Planning
Uses Allowed: (by -right unless otherwise Board (if checked) Use By Special
noted) any mix or their accessory Any nonresidential Permit Approval
f "`M rtitrf"ur f t e, tags es °` 'ins a uc on ;re. er a tr tfb°5C Thx 'S°m"
2.1, fences § 350 -6.8, horses and animals § 350- than 2,000 square feet Designated Board Minimum Building
5.3) triggers site plan (if checked) Dimensions Landscapin, Parking Design
Single- family dwelling or legal building lot in Lot size /frontage /depth: 2 per unit, 3
existence (excluding flag lots, see below) as of Same as in existence on
June 7, 2007, or 80,000
if contains
May 7, 2007, including attached accessory accessory
apartments meeting criteria in § 350 -10.10 square feet, whichever is apartment.
less
Setbacks:
Front: 20 feet
Side: 15 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Maximum height: 35 feet
Open space: 60%
Any excavation incidental to a permitted use
within three feet of the annual groundwater table Lot size: 80,000 square feet
with staff review to ensure there will be no
-
groundwater contamination and site will not be Frontage: 175 feet
dewatered
New single - family dwellings, including attached Depth: 200 feet
accessory apartments meeting criteria in § 350-
10.10 Setbacks:
Educational, religious use, day -care, school -aged See also § 350 -11.1 for Front: 20 feet Based on
child -care program (MGL c. 28A, § 9), family scale that triggers site Side: 15 feet square
day -care; preexisting nonconforming uses plan Rear: 20 feet footage. See
table.
Municipal facility; facilities for essential services Maximum height: 35 feet
Cemetery, including any crematory therein Open space: 85% ISee also
Agricultural uses (dimensional standards do not -
§ 350 -15.9 for increase in
apply) coverage allowances.]
Temporary event (see definitions)
Agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, Lot size: 80,000 square feet
non omTer 'al f rest y, = g o all Frontage: 175 feet
ve eta ae's n . t t o `(ifot e e — .041la?•204}+fesK.� „)
erection or use for a period of four months in any Setbacks:
one year) greenhouse or stand for retail sale of Front: 20 feet
agricultural or farm products raised primarily on Side: 15 feet
the same premises Rear: 20 feet
350 Attachment 1.8:1 05 - 01- 2012
City of Northampton
crane
f Massachusetts A
4
g 4 * DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS t''
4
AP 212 Main Street • Municipal Building
r . North
ampton, MA 01060 seDN.
Dar and Dorothy Cote - Houghton
383 Spring Street
Florence, MA 01062
Map -Lot: 16C -026
November 29, 2012
Dear Ms Cote - Houghton,
I have reviewed your zoning application It is my determination that this lot is not protected by
statute, that it has merged with the adjoining lot held in common ownership and therefore is not a legal
building lot.
This lot is in the WSP district; the minimum frontage is 175' and the minimum lot size is 80,000
square feet for this district. This lot does not meet those frontage and area requirements. I have
included the dimensional requirements for the WSP district, an excerpt from the Massachusetts zoning
statute and information from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development
about non - conforming lots held in common ownership.
You may contact me at the building department. The telephone number is 587 -1240
Respectfully,
Louis Hasbrouck
Building Commissioner
City of Northampton
(413) 587 -1240
Ihasbrouck(a�northamptonma.gov
RECEVI
1
NOV 2 ? 2012 ;
I
_
nrpT. OF BUILDi ■.,0 c GT I UNS File No.
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION ( §io.2)
Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building
Inspector's Office with the $15 filing fee (check or money order) payable to the
City of Northampton
�/d
1. Name of Applicant: t / 7 (We - %/'dv �? lam
Address: 34;3 Sion ,/Ye/i C Y fi2; Telephone: / �3 YG ?'a-
2. Owner of Property: ,c4/77-6
Address: Telephone:
3. Status of Applicant: Owner 7 Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain)
4. Job Location:
Parcel Id: Zoning Map# /& Parcel# ( > 7 District(s):
In Elm Street District - In Central Business District
(TO BE FILLED Ira BY T4iE BUILDING DEPART4AEt'IT)
5. Existing Use of Structure /Property: //One
6. Description of Proposed Use /Work /Project /Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary):
Zen? 1D /1// //61/-e /e/
7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan Site Plan Engineered /Surveyed Plans
8. Has a Special Permit /Variance /Finding e been issued for /on the site?
NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES, date issued:
IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds?
NO DONT KNOW YES
IF YES: enter Book Page and /or Document #
9.Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DON'T KNOW YES '/
IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission?
Needs to be obtained t/ Obtained , date issued:
(Form Continues On Other Side)
W:\ Documents\ FORMS\ original\Building - Inspector\ Zoning - Permit- Application- passive_doc 8/4/2004
File # MP- 2013 -0063
APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON COTE - HOUGHTON DOROTHY A & DAR
ADDRESS/PHONE 383 SPRING ST (413) 586 -5422 ()
PROPERTY LOCATION SPRING ST
MAP 16C PARCEL 026 001 ZONE URA(74)/WSP(74)/
THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE
ZONING FORM FILLED OUT
Fee Paid 1(�
'Vo1 N
Building Permit Filled out
Fee Paid
Tvpeof Construction: ZPA - BUILDABLE LOT
New Construction
Non Structural interior renovations
Addition to Existing
Accessory Structure
Building Plans Included:
Owner/ Statement or License
3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan
THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON f r.� ('�
INFORMATION PRESENTED: Ln t
Approved ,!'Additional permits required (see below)
PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER : §
Intermediate Project : Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan
Major Project: Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan
ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: §
Finding Special Permit Variance*
Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed
Other Permits Required:
Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability
Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health
Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee
Permit from Elm Street Commission Permit DPW Storm Water Management
i‘ ( Si nature of Building Official Date
g g
Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning
requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department
of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities.
* Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact the Office of
Planning & Development for more information.
r IQ1 1 LIV Vix . v..- ° ...—
APPROVAL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION
CONTROL L 4 W NOT REQUIRED
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
ROBERT H BEAN
ET ALS - BOOK
MAGNETIC 1987 S ° 2058 ,PAGE'
7 4 0 � 5 • 0'E 68.12' 6 00" W 148 .12 ' AGE 22 5 BOOK 2076, p4 GE 256
• 5 2 ° 8 0.00. S 0 9 ° 2 0 . 45..
. 8 0.00' 1 62.9 4 ,
82.94. 107.21' '
DA TED:
m d o S 0 4 ° 04'15" b ro�'ss. N
o
's,
N dp w N �"L1 AYPROV�t s
P- N a NOT `
N cri M +t ,LL REQfJIRiO d e
PAG 46 r m . ,,k SEE: BOOK 2 y o -t a'
EUGENE A. TACY ET ALS LL z 0
co w LAND OF O 0 x •
v L+KM•�
4 ft =)c, c:
Lt I--:. Ct cr •9 y r JAN 2 p 1388
Li Q p3Tiz
to G,
W N O 3 pm
o a +� 1-..'. 4. ® h 3 c'l
CO
N
In 'al
U N 3 d O4 D
a t w O N (1) O N ° M // o `"
o m 2 O 0) O to N ~
Q
Cr V- b' i7 --- __-<3-- k N
o. .n cn Sj A / 3 3 0 \ 1J \ '��' ��
• o - O
M m z 7°Th cv 6 2 S z 9 ?• 3�� 0pS o UNMARKED POINT
_ m z �/ n v cv ∎0 0 00 Y 3 R • SET IRON PIN
w w Z z NIGNWA
ci a Q o is B O O 0 . 44 0 \1 re
z n w / N 35 T
Lt W N Lii 4 0 M N N �e°
AN
�8. AN CIENT
aoN N •
r ;Es.'DI;:i 9ET ' w m BO g2 A S G / N 2-5 SP / P OF LAND IN TMP MASSACHUSETTS
PREPARED FOR
.:, : J EUGEN A° TACY ET AL S
,// �� �' SCALE NOR 1" = HA 50 ' f E i " �� y/ CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPA : Met, OCTOBER L 1987
�aOeS�oM_ CONFORMITY WITH THE 1976 RULES AND REGULA "^R HAROLD L. EATON AND ASSOCIATES INC.
i !, OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS OF THE COMMONWEAL TN �ro°t
€ m s; a ,,,, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
S'!!T7 N� *eels * s 9 SUNRISE DRIVE ---- HADLEY - - -- MASSACHUSETTS
N* SC
DA TED: I SURVEYOR: ��' • /04, LAtp 50 0 50 /00 150 200
511 .,(
1. pe 444 . � 45 0 15 F EET 30 45 60
METERS