Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boundary Line Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston planning board approves Carter boundary-line adjustment, notes disputed northern ownership
Summary
The Kingston Planning Board voted unanimously to approve a lot line adjustment for Walter G. Carter Jr. and Donna M. Carter (18 and 26 Church Street) with two conditions: correct a lot-history table entry and add a note that ownership on the site’s northern boundary is in contention.
The Kingston Planning Board on April 1 voted unanimously to approve a boundary-line adjustment for Walter G. Carter Jr. and Donna M. Carter at 18 and 26 Church Street, subject to two conditions: correcting a typographical error in the lot-history table and adding a note that ownership along the northern boundary is "in contention."
The board first invoked jurisdiction over the application after a public hearing and then moved to approve the lot-line swap with conditions. The motion to approve was made by Peter Coffin and seconded by Ellie Alessio; the board passed the motion unanimously.
Town Planner Glenn Greenwood told the board that he could not recommend the plan as-is because Kingston’s tax maps show a wedge of property along the Carters’ northern boundary that might be owned by an abutter. Greenwood said the discrepancy meant the plan should not be used to define ownership in the future and proposed two remedies: remove the contested parcel from the plan or include an explicit note stating the ownership is in contention. "I can't in good faith tell the board to sign something that doesn't comply or adhere to our tax maps," Greenwood said.
Abutter Peter Baker (26 North Road) produced recorded survey material and deed references showing pins and recorded lines he said supported his property's boundary wrapping around the Carter parcel. Baker told the board the issue could not be resolved during the hearing and urged the planning board to ensure the plan does not become definitive evidence of ownership in later disputes.
Under the approval, the applicant must: (1) correct the lot-history table entry for the affected parcel (change the bottom entry to R 36 rather than R 31) and (2) add a note on the final plan stating that ownership of the northern boundary from Greenwood Cemetery to the canal is "in contention." The board asked staff to provide exact wording for the record and directed applicant representatives to deliver that language for inclusion on the final mylar.
The approval was limited to the boundary-line adjustment before the board; Greenwood and the applicant agreed any deeper title or deed disputes would need to be settled outside the planning-board process through survey and recording corrections. The board closed public comment on the item before taking the vote.
