Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues contentious Pinecrest/Mary Anne subdivision after heavy neighborhood opposition
Summary
The Planning Board continued consideration of an application proposing an eight-lot subdivision off Mary Anne Drive and Pinecrest Drive after extensive public opposition focused on traffic, parking, narrow private roads, and overall density; the applicant agreed to consult with neighbors and return with revised options.
The Planning Board on Sept. 8 continued a high-profile application proposing an eight-lot subdivision accessed from Mary Anne Drive and Pinecrest Drive. The hearing drew dozens of residents who raised concerns about road width, emergency access, parking overflow, drainage, well water quality, and neighborhood character.
The applicant described the property as roughly 45,000 square feet and proposed eight R5-compliant lots; the application requested several roadway waivers and showed a private subdivision roadway to connect new lots to Mary Anne. Neighbors and trustees of the local homeowners association said Mary Anne is a narrow private drive that already carries substantial parking and traffic, and they urged the board not to approve a layout with so many lots without comprehensive traffic, drainage and access review.
Multiple residents, including homeowners directly on Mary Anne, reported repeated parking conflicts and concerns about emergency-vehicle access. Several speakers asked the town to require a traffic study and to coordinate with public-safety officials and utilities. The board’s discussion focused on two core planning issues: (1) whether the applicant has legal and practical rights to use Mary Anne as the subdivision access (title/easement questions), and (2) whether the proposed roadway layout and requested waivers are appropriate for the site.
Planning staff and counsel told the board that title/access questions fall outside the board’s technical review and may need separate legal documentation; multiple participants urged the applicant to provide clear documentation of easement or access rights. Board members asked the applicant to meet with abutters and to return with a narrower alternative plan; the applicant agreed to consult further. The board continued the item to its Oct. 20 meeting to allow the applicant and neighbors to negotiate improvements or a different layout.
