I am preparing an ANR (Approval Not Required) plan to transfer a parcel to one of the abutters.?ÿ The remaining land had enough area and frontage for zoning.?ÿ I, and other surveyors, have gotten push back from the towns planning board on signing a plan showing a new parcel and no frontage.?ÿ Do any other MA surveyors know of a court case that addresses this issue??ÿ I'm starting to search now to prepare for the upcoming planing board meeting.
What you describe is a pretty common application of the ANR process. Take a look in "The ANR Handbook" under "ANR Statements and One Lot Plans"
The plan needs to have a note indicating the non-buildable nature of the parcel being transferred.
Is there no Town Planner to explain the ANR rules to the Planning Board?
What Bob Said!?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ And, you can always ask them what part of the submission creates a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law.?ÿ?ÿ The planning board has two options, sign the plan, or determine that it is a subdivision.
?ÿ
Dtp
Here is the download link for "The ANR Handbook":
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/07/rn/anrhandbook.pdf
Every Mass. surveyor should have a copy.
I do not see that ANR is the proper reference for what you are doing. From your description you are removing a non conforming parcel from a lot where the remainder is conforming. That requires Board approval.
What you need to do is to survey both parcels, show that the area in question will become a part of the second lot and that "No New Parcels" are being created. From what I read in ANR, that is not addressed clearly, but should have been. The closest I saw was filing a lot perimeter survey (no new lots) ?ÿto lock in a zoning classification for three years.?ÿ
Paul in PA
I will stand by my first reply.?ÿ The ANR process is unique to Massachusetts (I think) and is the correct process for what the OP is proposing.
The property being divided has been surveyed to get to this point. We usually include the second property (purchasing the "parcel) on the plan, but this is not absolutely required.?ÿ
Perhaps somewhere down the pike a section 81-X "no new lines" plan can be prepared combining the "parcel" with the abutting lot, but not required until some action?ÿtriggers it.
The real problem that the OP is running into is that some Planning Boards do not understand or like the ANR process.
Bob?ÿ
Bob's right, but what do we know about MA practice??ÿ We only have about 60 years of experience with this process, between us.?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ The Key is that the planning board can only determine that the plan shows a subdivision as defined under the subdivision control law, Paul in PA, or they must endorse the plan.?ÿ?ÿ There?ÿare not any provisions to create "unbuildable" lots, but land swapping is fairly common around these parts. and the ANR process is what I've been using for 35 years.
I do not see that ANR is the proper reference for what you are doing. From your description you are removing a non conforming parcel from a lot where the remainder is conforming. That requires Board approval.
What you need to do is to survey both parcels, show that the area in question will become a part of the second lot and that "No New Parcels" are being created. From what I read in ANR, that is not addressed clearly, but should have been. The closest I saw was filing a lot perimeter survey (no new lots) ?ÿto lock in a zoning classification for three years.?ÿ
Paul in PA
What the other Mass guys said, this is the procedure for transferring a parcel between abutters, where the parcel isn't meant to be a separate building lot.
Someone needs to remind these planning boards that their endorsement is just a procedural thing, and they really have no say as long as the ANR criteria are met.
Another Mass. guy here. Probably 90% of my ANRs have at least one of these unbuildable parcels.
The note I use is something like "Parcel A is not a building lot due to lack of required area and frontage."
Approval Not Required is understood by surveyors, but a simple inclusion in the ANR document of language regarding lot line adjustments, parcel to parcel commitments, would make life so much clearer to the Planning Board members. It appears everyone is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Without showing clear legally citations, a plan showing a subdivision of a parcel is a "Subdivision", absent of a clear written exception otherwise.
Paul in PA
Approval Not Required is understood by surveyors, but a simple inclusion in the ANR document of language regarding lot line adjustments, parcel to parcel commitments, would make life so much clearer to the Planning Board members. It appears everyone is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Without showing clear legally citations, a plan showing a subdivision of a parcel is a "Subdivision", absent of a clear written exception otherwise.
Paul in PA
But it's not a subdivision, that's the point.
Approval Not Required is understood by surveyors, but a simple inclusion in the ANR document of language regarding lot line adjustments, parcel to parcel commitments, would make life so much clearer to the Planning Board members. It appears everyone is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Without showing clear legally citations, a plan showing a subdivision of a parcel is a "Subdivision", absent of a clear written exception otherwise.
Paul in PA
But it's not a subdivision, that's the point.
No, the point is the ANR document does not clearly state that is "Not A Subdivision".
Paul in PA
Approval Not Required is understood by surveyors, but a simple inclusion in the ANR document of language regarding lot line adjustments, parcel to parcel commitments, would make life so much clearer to the Planning Board members. It appears everyone is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Without showing clear legally citations, a plan showing a subdivision of a parcel is a "Subdivision", absent of a clear written exception otherwise.
Paul in PA
But it's not a subdivision, that's the point.
No, the point is the ANR document does not clearly state that is "Not A Subdivision".
Paul in PA
Paul with all due respect you are out of your pond. It is entitled to an ANR endorsement and it is not a subdivision per the definition as found in the statute. Yes, the ANR document does clearly state that it is "Not a Subdivision" In fact the planning board signs under that exact statement.
The ANR Handbook by Don Schmidt is an invaluable tool.
I cannot believe that there is still a PB out there that this is an issue with. I remember dealing with this 30 years ago. Can I ask what town you are in?
?ÿ
?ÿ
The Hack
There is a problem with the language here. Clearly when a new line is created to split land into two or more parcels it is a subdivision. However when the parcels have frontage on an existing public highway we can say that the Planning Board??s approval is not required under the subdivision control law.
?ÿ
Trying to make economy in the number of words will always lead to confusion. It is worth the time and extra effort to speak and write clearly. As an example, we have a law that allows traffic to turn right on red after coming to a full stop and checking for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The words are often condensed to merely ??right on red? which leads people to the wrong conclusion. The damage has already been done.
?ÿ
Clearly there are two types of subdivisions in Massachusetts. Those that require a review and approval by the Planning Board as defined in the Subdivision Control Law and those that are not governed by that law.
?ÿ
Also to simply state the approval is not required is on its face incorrect. The Planning Board may reject the submission if the parcels being created do not have adequate access or do not conform to current zoning regulations. The Planning Board does this review despite the ??fact? that their approval is not required.
?ÿ
Language shorthand is never economical. I??ve never understood why people believe it is either. You might use a note on the map explaining the non-conforming parcel is to be annexed to an adjoining parcel of land for the purpose of?? rather than assume that everyone knows.
"The ANR Handbook" is a guide published by the state to assist Planning Board's in understanding the statute allowing land divisions by the ANR process, and the myriad court cases that have been ruled upon interpreting that statute.?ÿ The statute even calls out the phrase "approval not required" as what is to be noted on the plan. The division and exchange of land parcels that do not require the construction of a road is treated as a right of the landowners, and the Planning Board is required to ENDORSE a plan that does not show a subdivision as defined under the Subdivision Control Law.?ÿ Think of it as subdivision (endorsed) vs. Subdivision (approved) = ANR plan vs. Definitive Subdivision Plan. The endorsement by the Planning Board serves simply to notify the registry of deeds that the plan is entitled to be recorded.
The only problem here is that the Planning Board in question is composed of people who either haven't read the damn handbook, or are too arrogant to believe that all the Supreme Judicial Court cases it references applies to them.
Well said, Peter, or do you wish to be referred to as "Count Surveyor"?
?ÿ
Kevin
Thanks for the responses everyone.?ÿ
I have a copy of the ANR handbook and will be reading up on this question over the weekend.?ÿ Right now i'd rather not specify which town it is in, I have to present my plan next week.?ÿ I have used this same process successfully in other towns with no questions asked.?ÿ I hear from other local surveyors that it is just this board that doesn't want to approve anything.
I'll let you all know how it turns out.
