Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board clears pre‑application to create a non‑development band to preserve DuPont family lawn and prevent lot merger
Summary
The board advised that a proposed minor subdivision would create a non‑developable strip of land to preserve lawn use while keeping conservation easements and preventing future lot‑merger that could change development rights.
The planning board reviewed a pre‑application Feb. 12 from BIGath, LLC regarding a subdivision involving former DuPont holdings and advised that the concept of creating a non‑development parcel to preserve lawn use and prevent merger is acceptable, subject to administrative processing.
Planner Joe (presenting) explained that Dorothy DuPont in 1999 had placed a conservation easement over two larger lots, leaving a smaller house lot that has historically used surrounding land for a lawn. The proposed subdivision would create a narrow, oddly shaped parcel labeled “not for development” and convey that band to the DuPont family, with a municipal condition or notation preventing that parcel from ever being merged with the small house lot. The goal is to preserve current lawn use without unintentionally expanding the developable area of the small lot in the future.
Board members asked whether the conservation easement already prohibited structures and whether portable buildings or accessory structures would be allowed; the presenter and the conservation contact confirmed the easement is restrictive and prohibits construction and many uses on the red‑lined area. The board discussed the desire to document the no‑merge restriction both privately (in the deed) and municipally (as a recorded, municipal restriction) to provide “two sets of suspenders” so future owners and building officials will see the limit.
Planning staff noted that under recent enabling‑act changes, many minor subdivisions that do not require variances or new roads are handled administratively by the planning/zoning official and do not need preliminary planning‑board approval; staff said the town planner will prepare the administrative review and the board will be informed at final reporting. The board was comfortable with the proposal and the conservation easement remaining in effect.
The planning board and the Nature Conservancy representative (reported present in the staff discussion) said they had coordinated with DuPont and McMahon family representatives and that the conservancy did not object to the proposed arrangement. The board agreed no motion was required for tonight’s pre‑application beyond staff processing; planners will proceed with administrative review and prepare any conditions that should be memorialized in the final approval record.
