MA Appeals Court Concluded Lot Frontage Length May Include the End of Incomplete Private Way and Affirmed

This post was authored by Olena Botshteyn, Esq.

Anne Veilleux and Charles Williams (“Owners”) own a parcel in the town of Hull (“Town”). The parcel comprises two adjacent lots (“Lot 2” and “Lot 3A”) with a private way (“Way 1”) running to the north alongside the borders of both lots. To the south, the Lot 3A borders the property of Don Perry and a private way (“Way 2”) running from east to west, intersecting Way 1 and terminating in the middle of it. It was previously established that the Way 2 length along the Lot 3A is sixty-nine feet, and in this case against the Town and the Owners Perry argues that the Owners are not entitled to build a house on their property, because their parcel’s frontage on Way 2 does not satisfy the seventy-five-foot requirement of the bylaw. Owners argue that they satisfy the requirement, as the frontage length shall include the part of Way 2 intersecting Way 1. In other words, Way 2 borders the parcel from two sides and both sides shall be counted to satisfy the frontage requirement. The Land Court agreed with the Owners and affirmed the ZBA decision, allowing the Owners to build a house on their property. Perry appealed.

The bylaw defines that the ends of incomplete streets shall not be counted towards lot frontage. When deciding that the incomplete street exception shall not apply here, both the ZBA and the Land Court distinguished between “private ways” and “streets” and concluded that the exception shall apply to streets only. The Way 2 is a private way and not a street. On appeal, Perry argued that the bylaw uses the terms “way” and “street” interchangeably, and while the court agreed that in certain instances that is true, the court concluded that when it comes to the “incomplete streets exception” the bylaw refers specifically only to streets and does not include ways.

Perry further argued that since the bylaw requires seventy-five feet of “frontage in linear feet” and the parcel’s border is not in a straight line, it does not meet the requirement. The court disagreed, stating that “measuring something in “linear feet” merely means that the size of something is measured without reference to its other dimensions, such as width or height.” The court rejected other arguments and affirmed the decision of the Land Court.

Perry v Zoning Board of Appeals of Hull, 2021 WL 2932855 (MA App. 7/13/2021)