Property owners Debbie Beck and Michael Green and their representatives asked the Greenland Planning Board on a pending lot-line adjustment and conditional-use application for 108 Great Bay Road to permit a second backlot without the town's usual workforce-housing requirement.

The board accepted the application as complete and, after substantial public and board discussion about the workforce-housing rule, voted to continue the application to a future meeting and to hold a site walk. The board asked the applicants to submit a written argument explaining why the second backlot should be exempt from the workforce-housing requirement and to provide a sketch showing how the subdivision could proceed without the waiver.

The applicants presented the lot-line adjustment as an amendment to an older subdivision. Engineer Paige Libby said the proposal adds land from a larger parent parcel into what is now Lot 2D so that the enlarged parcel can be subdivided into two backlots. Libby said wetlands on and around the parcels make the new lots larger than the minimum so building and septic envelopes can be sited without crossing wetland buffers.

Attorney Kent Phoenix and the owners argued the workforce-housing restriction added to the town's backlot rules in 2024 makes the second backlot economically infeasible in the current building market and burdensome if the lot is intended for a family member. "We think it makes sense and we ask for your consideration and approval," Phoenix told the board. Debbie Beck described the topography and said the proposal is a practical way to use a parcel that is separated from the remainder of her land by a stream.

Board members questioned whether allowing an exemption would set a precedent and noted the 2024 amendment that permits a second backlot only if it is dedicated to workforce housing. One member said the ordinance was adopted by voters and the board must enforce the public's intent; another member said construction costs and mortgage limits can make a workforce-home sale impractical on an individual two-lot subdivision.

The board asked the applicant to show in writing how the subdivision could be configured without a waiver and to explain why the workforce requirement should be waived. The board also scheduled a site walk for July 14 at 5:00 p.m. and continued the application to the board meeting on July 17 for further deliberation after the site visit.

No formal approval of the waiver was made at the meeting; the board's recorded actions were acceptance of the application as complete and a motion to continue the application after the site visit. Board members also identified several waivers requested in the filing, including a request to avoid surveying the full 70-acre parent parcel, frontage and lot-area waivers related to backlot rules, and the workforce-housing waiver.

The board asked staff to accept a sketch of the alternate subdivision configuration and a written justification from the applicants before the continued hearing.