Loading...
Sparkle Letter to ZBA 6.10.21 Meeting8 June 2021 Bucky & Emily Sparkle 87 Grove Avenue Leeds, MA 01053 zengineerbucky@gmail.com Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Carolyn Misch, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner & Permits Manager City of Northampton – City Hall 210 Main Street, Rm 11, Northampton, MA 01060 Subj:Appeal of the Building Commissioner’s Decision by Pat Melnik Sr, Trustee of Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Raul and Farah Matta that a lot is not a building lot end of Grove Ave, Leeds, Map ID 5-12 Dear Board Members, As one of two direct abutters to the Melnik parcel (Map ID 050-12), my wife and I request that you uphold the Building Commissioner’s decision that the land is not a buildable lot. There are several reasons why this property should not be considered a buildable lot. While some of these reasons are personal, I wish to focus on the less subjective and more substantive reasons. To wit (bold and other emphasis added for quicker reading): 1.In 2011 Hampshire County Superior Court ordered 1 and adjudged that “Grove Avenue, Northampton, Massachusetts is a public way for its entire length to the point where it abuts the property now owned by the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust.” Thus, the court order specifies where the public way terminates and does not create a public way beyond this point. 2.Section 81M of the Subdivision Control Law2 requires that new lots, including ANR lots, have an adequate public way “that will be safe and convenient for travel; for lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways; ... for securing safety in the case of fire, flood, panic and other emergencies; ... for securing adequate provision for ... fire, police, and other similar municipal equipment….” Grove Avenue is lacking in each of the underlined requirements necessary for the public way to be adequate. 3.It is not proper for the narrow, bitter end of a right-ow-way to be considered frontage. At the time we built our home, the Senior Land Use Planner made it clear that our frontage ended at the longitudinal termini of the public way’s pavement and not at the end of the right-of-way. 4.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Emery v. Crowley 3 declared that “the term ‘abutting’… refers to property with frontage along the length of the way”. Further, it states that “real estate at the end of the way … does not ‘abut’ the way in the traditional or statutory sense of the word.” Frontage follows the edge of the road and does not run across the width of a dead- end. 5.One of the deeply concerning arguments offered by the applicant’s attorney is that the existence of a “paper street” is adequate to constitute further development at the end of Grove Avenue. A paper street established 113 years ago which has not been accepted by the city, maintained by the DPW or used by the public cannot reasonably be considered frontage. Should the ZBA determine that an 1 Superior Court Judgment on Finding of the Court Docket No. HSCV2004-0029 2 MGL Part I, Title VII, Chapter 41 contains the Subdivision Control Law 3 Supreme Judicial Court in the 1976 case of Emery v. Crowley, 376 Mass. 489 (1976) ancient piece of paper constitutes adequate frontage, this issue goes beyond the current appeal for a single lot. The paper portion of Grove Avenue extends 258 feet northward and 202 eastward, encompassing 5 separate lots and 2 acres of woodland. This could provide frontage for up to 9 new ANR lots along the “road”, allowing up to 18 by-right new residences to materialize past the end of Grove Avenue. Presently, there are only 15 homes with Grove Avenue Addresses. 6.The “paper street” past the terminus of Grove Avenue does not qualify as a way in existence, per a 1999 Land Court case4. The court explained that the Subdivision Control Law recognizes “ways already in use at the time the subdivision control law became effective, provided such ways offer adequate access, and not to create a mechanism to circumvent the subdivision review process for ways ... within the layout of previously delineated ‘paper streets’.” As such, the existence of a paper street does not constitute a public way. 7.If additional frontage was desired, an applicant should have to build a subdivision-level cul-de-sac and go through the legal process of creating new public way. Per Northampton’s Subdivision Regulations, Article VII Design Standards, §290-29 Streets and Ways , the maximum extent of a dead-end street is 500 feet. The dead-end portion of Grove Avenue is exactly 500 feet long in it’s current form. Thus, the extension of Grove Avenue as a public way is not permitted by the city. 8.The City Assessor’s office has this property listed as “Undevelopable”, having an appraised value of $6,800. Clearly, the owner has benefited by paying extremely low taxes on a property valued at a few percent of a marketable lot. It is well understood by the city that there are ongoing nuisance issues regarding heavy use of the neighborhood by individuals seeking to access the nearby swimming holes and conservation land. Donna LaScaleia, the Director of the DPW, has made it clear that Grove Avenue is so narrow as to prohibit parking on both sides of the dead-end portion of the street. Concerns regarding emergency vehicles accessing the last 8 homes on Grove Avenue are a primary cause for this prohibition. The end of the street is a daily drop-off station for people unloading sometimes multiple cars worth of “beach gear”, pets and families. Speaking as the last driveway on Grove Avenue, I can attest to sometimes dozens of vehicles per day making multi-point turns in the narrow pavement or using our driveway as the easiest means to turn around. Day trippers, UPS, FedEx, Northampton DPW and emergency service vehicles have all done this – which we anticipated and willingly allow. Should one (or 18) new homes be added to the street, the ongoing safety issues will be exacerbated. This is not an “infill development” project , which utilizes existing roads, utilities and sparsely settled urban land. This is sprawl which lacks legal frontage on a public way , is on a heavily trafficked drive, cuts into contiguous woodlands and has meaningful impediments for emergency services. Extending a development corridor past the end of Grove Avenue will have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Please deny the appeal and uphold the Building Commissioner’s decision. Thank you. Brightly, Bucky & Emily Sparkle Attachments: Superior Court Judgment finding that Grove Avenue right-of-way definitively terminates Potential impact of allowing a paper street to provide frontage Assessor card for Parcel 05-012 Photos from a walk to our mailbox on Saturday 6/5/21 4 Gould v. Planning Board of Pembroke, 7 LCR 78 (1999) Misc. Case No. 237217 Figure 1: Judgment terminating Grove Avenue. Superior Court Judgment on Finding of the Court Docket No. HSCV2004-0029. Figure 2: Assessor card for Parcel 05-012 Figure 3: Potential ANR development if a "paper street" were upheld. Nine possible lots, each available for 2 dwellings by-right. Figure 4: The Public. Grove Avenue is heavily used by families and non-local visitors. This photo is taken from our driveway, which is the last one at the dead-end. One of these vehicles unloaded in the middle of the street, blocking access for emergency and other vehicles. Looking west, photo taken 6/5/21. Figure 5: Even where "No Parking" signs exist, Grove Avenue is a preferred parking location for visitors to the swimming holes. Looking south, photo taken 6/5/21. Mailboxes 600 feet from the end of Grove Avenue Figure 6: Due to daily visitors this day, roughly 350 feet of pavement is not wide enough for 2-way traffic, let alone pedestrians, bicyclists and dog-walkers. Looking north, photo taken 6/5/21.