In a recent planning board meeting, a proposal to subdivide a 6.02-acre property located at 13 Danville Road and Drew Lane into two residential lots was discussed. The proposal, presented by Charlie Zilch of SEC and Associates on behalf of property owners Mark Mason and Kerry Eaton, aims to create two lots of 3.02 acres and 3 acres, respectively, utilizing existing frontages on Danville Road and Drew Lane.

The existing property features a single-family dwelling and a detached garage, with access provided by a shared circular driveway. The subdivision plan complies with the lot sizing requirements of the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone and the Aquifer Protection District, with test pits confirming viable septic areas and water supply for both proposed lots.

However, the proposal faced scrutiny regarding the legality of the frontage on Drew Lane. Board member Glenn raised concerns that the existing cul-de-sac bulb, which was never constructed, does not provide the required 200 feet of frontage for the new lot. He suggested that the only solutions would be to either construct the approved cul-de-sac or apply for a variance from the town's frontage requirements.

Zilch argued that the recorded right-of-way provides legal frontage, despite the cul-de-sac not being built to specifications. He proposed constructing a gravel turnaround to satisfy safety concerns raised by the fire chief and road agent, which would also enhance the road's functionality.

The board discussed the implications of the proposal, with some members expressing the need for a site walk to assess the situation further. Several waivers were requested, including one to forego preliminary application and another to reduce the escrow amount. The board generally showed support for these waivers, but the issue of frontage legality remained a significant point of contention.

As the discussion progressed, it became clear that the outcome of this proposal could set a precedent for future developments in the area, particularly regarding the interpretation of frontage requirements on existing roads. The planning board is expected to continue deliberating on the matter, with a decision required within 65 days of invoking jurisdiction.