The Needham Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 30 denied an appeal from the estate of Patricia Connolly challenging the Building Commissioners denial of adequate frontage for 0 Colgate Road.

Attorney Jeff Hugino, representing the appellant, argued the parcel (identified as Lot 14 on a 1954 ANR plan) has 95 feet of frontage on a private way historically shown as "Old Cart Path" and that, together with earlier 1947 layout plans, the lot meets the minimum 80 feet of frontage required in the single‑residence B district. Hugino presented a chain of historical plans and title references and said an ANR endorsed by the planning board in 1954 supports his position.

Opposing counsel and nearby owners disputed that characterization. Catherine Browker Adams, representing 66 Colgate Road owners Ellen Herbitz and Barry Strasnick, said the parcel has never been recognized as fronting on a qualifying public or private way for zoning purposes, and that the ground conditions, site geometry and existing easements indicate the area functions as driveway/access for 66 Colgate rather than an independent street providing frontage to Lot 14. Counsel noted a 1975 covenant and a 1975 definitive subdivision plan and said a 1975 temporary easement and later town taking reinforced the current access arrangement.

Why it matters: under Needhams zoning rules a lot must have sufficient frontage on a way that qualifies under the subdivision control and zoning definitions. The parties disputed whether historical paper streets, ANR endorsements and later subdivision documents granted legal frontage to the parcel at 0 Colgate Road. The board concluded the appellant did not meet the burden to overturn the Building Commissioner.

Board action: after deliberation the ZBA voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Building Commissioners determination that the lot lacks adequate frontage. The motion to deny was seconded and carried unanimously.

Legal references: counsel cited historical ANR and subdivision plans and case law regarding paper streets and private way rights (including Anderson v. DeVry, 326 Mass. 127) in briefing. The record includes references to the Town's subdivision plans (1947, 1954 ANR, 1974 definitive plan) and a 1975 covenant recorded with the subdivision.

Practical effects: the denial preserves the Building Commissioners finding that the parcel is not currently entitled to a building permit based on zoning frontage; any future effort to create frontage would require a different record (recordable releases from all owners of rights in the way or a court determination), engineering resolution for utilities and site access, or other legal remedy.