17D-008 (4) .
|
|
!
|
/
!
|
|
i
�
|
|
/
'
i
|
|
!
/
i
r-"
definition of the term "primarily", a reasonable interpretation is
that more than 50% of the items offered for sale must be grown on
the Bridge Road site as determined either by sales price or volume.
In March, 1995, a new version of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 3,
became effective. That section states that a local zoning
ordinance may not unreasonably prohibit or require a special permit
for
. .facilities for the sale of produce. . .provided that
during the months of June, July, August, and September of
every year or during the harvest season of the primary
crop raised on land of the owner or lessee, the majority
of such products for sale, based on either gross sales
dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner or
lessee of the land on which the facility is located. . .
The section also includes a provision that communities may limit
the above use to parcels of five acres in areas not zoned for
agriculture.
It is my opinion that, as of March, 1995, the City's Zoning
Ordinance was superseded by the new Section 3 . The local
requirement that the produce offered for sale in a farmstand be
grown "primarily" on site is invalid. Instead, the majority of
products for sale must be produced by the owner of the property on
which the farmstand is located but not necessarily on the site of
the farmstand. Although Section 3 allows the City to restrict
farmstands to parcels of five (5) acres or more, the current Zoning
Ordinance does not do so. Therefore, the size of Mrs. Fedenkevez's
property is immaterial.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Mrs. Fedenkevez may operate a
farmstand at 604 Bridge Road during the summer as long as the
majority of the produce/flowers sold there are grown by her, either
at the Bridge Road property or on other property that she owns
leases, or rents. ,
Since the use is allowed, there is no need to determine whether it
was abandoned because of the years when it was not in operation.
The Building Inspector should determine parking requirements for
the use. However, it appears that only one or two spaces will
probably be required given the small size of the farmstand.
cc: Paulette Kuzdeba, Senior Planner
$ 8 City of Northampton
$ Law Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Frank Sienkiewicz, Building Inspector
FROM:
Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor
SUBJECT:
Fydenkevez farmstand
DATE:
June 9, 1995
You have requested an opinion as to whether Angela Fydenkevez may
reestablish a farmstand on her property at 604 Bridge Road. My
understanding of the facts, as provided by Mrs. Fydenkevez's
attorney, Diane Fernald, is as follows.
Mrs. Fydenkevez and her late husband sold produce from the property
at 604 Bridge Road from July, 1975, until September, 1989 . At that
time, they discontinued the farmstand because of heated property
disputes with a neighbor over a right of way. They deemed it wiser
not to exacerbate the situation by operating the stand which was
located in or near the disputed area. The dispute was finally
resolved, and, in July, 1994, the stand was reopened. A neighbor
complained when the stand reopened, the complaint focusing on
customers parking on the right of way. At that time, you issued a
cease and desist order for the farmstand use.
Mrs. Fydenkevez grew some of the produce and flowers sold at the
stand on the Bridge Road property. However, the majority of the
items for sale were grown on other land of the Fydenkevez's in
Hadley. The property is located in a Rural Residential District.
Under the 1959 codification of the Code of Ordinances, roadside
stands were allowed in residential zoning districts only as an
accessory use on a parcel whose primary use was as a farm, garden,
or nursery. There was no mention of farmstands operated in
connection with a residential use in the ordinance. The 1977
recodification made temporary farmstands as an allowed use in an RR
district but restricted their operation to four (4) months of the
year and required that the produce offered for sale be raised
"primarily" on the same premises. The current zoning is virtually
identical to the 1977 version.
It appears that the farmstand has been since 1977, and continues to
be, an allowed use under the Zoning Ordinance as long as the
produce and flowers sold there are raised primarily on the
premises. Although the Zoning Ordinance contains no specific
I
I
I
I
i
I,
definition of the term "primarily", a reasonable interpretation is
that more than 50% of the items offered for sale must be grown on
the Bridge Road site as determined either by sales price or volume.
In March, 1995, a new version of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 3,
became effective. That section states that a local zoning
ordinance may not unreasonably prohibit or require a special permit
for
. . facilities for the sale of produce. . .provided that
during the months of June, July, August, and September of
every year or during the harvest season of the primary
crop raised on land of the owner or lessee, the majority
of such products for sale, based on either gross sales
dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner or
lessee of the land on which the facility is located. . .
The section also includes a provision that communities may limit
the above use to parcels of five acres in areas not zoned for
agriculture.
It is my opinion that, as of March, 1995, the City's Zoning
Ordinance was superseded by the new Section 3 . The local
requirement that the produce offered for sale in a farmstand be
grown "primarily" on site is invalid. Instead, the majority of
products for sale must be produced by the owner of the property on
which the farmstand is located but not necessarily on the site of
the farmstand. Although Section 3 allows the City to restrict
farmstands to parcels of five (5) acres or more, the current Zoning
Ordinance does not do so. Therefore, the size of Mrs. FedenkevezIs
property is immaterial.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Mrs. Fedenkevez may operate a
farmstand at 604 Bridge Road during the summer as long as the
majority of the produce/flowers sold there are grown by her, either
at the Bridge Road property or on other property that she owns,
leases, or rents.
Since the use is allowed, there is no need to determine whether it
was abandoned because of the years when it was not in operation.
The Building Inspector should determine parking requirements for
the use. However, it appears that only one or two spaces will
probably be required given the small size of the farmstand.
cc: Paulette Kuzdeba, Senior Planner
I
1
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
Ka
Y 6
$ City of Northampton
It ` Law Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Frank Sienkiewicz, Building Inspector
FROM:
Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor
SUBJECT:
Fydenkevez farmstand
DATE:
June 9, 1995
You have requested an opinion as to whether Angela Fydenkevez may
reestablish a farmstand on her property at 604 Bridge Road. My
understanding of the facts, as provided by Mrs. Fydenkevez's
attorney, Diane Fernald, is as follows.
Mrs. Fydenkevez and her late husband sold produce from the property
at 604 Bridge Road from July, 1975, until September, 1989. At that
time, they discontinued the farmstand because of heated property
disputes with a neighbor over a right of way. They deemed it wiser
not to exacerbate the situation by operating the stand which was
located in or near the disputed area. The dispute was finally
resolved, and, in July, 1994, the stand was reopened. A neighbor
complained when the stand reopened, the complaint focusing on
customers parking on the right of way. At that time, you issued a
cease and desist order for the farmstand use.
Mrs. Fydenkevez grew some of the produce and flowers sold at the
stand on the Bridge Road property. However, the majority of the
items for sale were grown on other land of the Fydenkevez Is in
Hadley. The property is located in a Rural Residential District.
Under the 1959 codification of the Code of Ordinances, roadside
stands were allowed in residential zoning districts only as an
accessory use on a parcel whose primary use was as a farm, garden,
or nursery. There was no mention of farmstands operated in
connection with a residential use in the ordinance. The 1977
recodification made temporary farmstands as an allowed use in an RR
district but restricted their operation to four (4) months of the
year and required that the produce offered for sale be raised
"primarily" on the same premises. The current zoning is virtually
identical to the 1977 version.
It appears that the farmstand has been since 1977, and continues to
be, an allowed use under the Zoning Ordinance as long as the
produce and flowers sold there are raised primarily on the
premises. Although the Zoning Ordinance contains no specific
i
I
i
j
I
I
j
i
I
I
t
.� MAR 1 6 .1998
February 25, 199 �F ,;x !!!!�:, 5
Dear Mr. CnairTan anal Yemb rs of the Board:
There is a ugly prob&&m on '33rido-e Road and I am rointinq out -he
seasonal roadside stand jiixtanosition with the cemeter.v and the church.
It is an awful mess . Please -?o not issue a rermit for this Year.
I have done quite q bit of research Ps to where she grets her rroduce .
The woman does not c-rorrr any zremel-abl s he-self. AbsollitelY none .
pier aspara u_s cores from 'ibb:a.rd Fares or Stans Prodi..a.ce in I?adlev.
Tne sweet corn co es from 11,1a.lt-r. Wanez.y1T in Hadley and most of -er
other greens come from Hadley.
She grows nothing herself . You are zoning that as co'�mercial and it
has not been rezoned from city records .
Please do clean un the area by not issi.zi.ng h-ra permit .
I belong to the church and we look at it with a jaundice eye.
Mrs Fyden has a full time job in peddling newspapers.
RespectfiAly,
s
i
,.�
I
i
AVj
�zz
0 7;p
-7--72
JL4
APR 3 0
TOF
i
'
|
.
|
|
|
.
|
/
|
�
i
!
|
� `
.
'
/
/
'
/
|
|
|
!
e art4a pt
arch 23, 1998
DXPARrlvr9W OF SUtLOIXG INSPRMON.S
INSPECTOR Angela& Bertha Fydenk9WMAin Street • Municipal Building
604 Bridge Road Northampton, Mass. 01060
Northampton, MA 01060
Subject: Complaint received regarding operation of vegetable stand.
Dear Ms. Fydenkevez,
Our office was forwarded a complaint from the Northampton Planning(copy attached)
stating that the produce you are selling is not produced by you on land that you own or
lease. MGL 40A Section 3 effective March, 1995 states that a local zoning ordinance
may not unreasonably prohibit or require a special permit for:
"Facilities for the sale of produce. provided that during the months of June, July, August,
and September of every year or during the harvest season of the primary crop raised on
land of the owner or lessee, the majority of such products for sale, based on either gross
sales dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which
the facility is located...."
The opinion of the City Solicitor at the time of MGL 40A change stated that" As of
March 1995 the city's zoning ordinance was superseded by the new Section 3. The local
requirement that produce offered for sale in a farmstand be grown"primarily" on site is
invalid. Instead, the majority of products for sale be produced by the owner of the
property on which the facility but not necessarily on the site of the farmstand. Although
Section 3 allows the City to restrict farmstands to parcels of five (5) acres or more, the
current Zoning Ordinance does not do so. Therefore, the size of Mrs. Fedenkevez's
property is immaterial".
As long as the majority of produce/flowers sold at your farmstand are grown by you,
either at the bridge Road property or on other property that you own or lease the farm
stand is legitimate. However if, as the complaint states, you are not growing the majority
of produce for sale then you would be violating Zoning Ordinances for operation of a
business,.
Our office requests that you provide documentation to support your position that you do
produce the majority of the products you sell at you farmstand on land that you own or
land that you lease so that we can respond to the complaint received in our office.
Thank you. If you have any questions please contact this office at 587-1240.
Sincerely ,
Anthony Patillo
Building Commissioner
City of Northampton
CC:Planning Board
Building Department
413-587-1240------fax 413-587-1272