Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Lot Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves proof plan for rear-lot subdivision at Bayberry Lane; members ask broader review of rear-lot rules
Summary
The board approved a proof-plan step that enables a future rear-lot special-permit subdivision at 16 Bayberry Lane, while several members urged staff to bring a future discussion of rear-lot bylaw interpretation and topography/grade controls to the board.
The Planning Board unanimously approved a proof-plan (AR) submission for a two-lot rear-lot subdivision at 16 Bayberry Lane and heard calls from members and public commenters for a separate review of how rear-lot special permits and grading are handled.
Jeff Blackwell, representing the property owner, described the submission as a conventional proof subdivision that demonstrates the site can be divided into two conforming lots with a 20-foot right-of-way. The application is intended as the precursor step to a rear-lot special-permit request that would ultimately permit a shared driveway rather than construction of a new 40-foot roadway. Blackwell said the board has approved similar procedures in the past and that the plan as presented meets zoning dimensional requirements if the board grants the waiver for a 20-foot right-of-way.
Board members and several public commenters focused on related policy matters rather than the narrow plan details. Emily Molden of the Nantucket Land and Water Council suggested the Planning Board consider a stand-alone discussion on rear-lot subdivision provisions so the board and staff could clarify differing legal interpretations and examine possible changes to the bylaw. "It could be an interesting discussion to have that maybe would lead to some clarification to propose for the bylaw," Molden said.
Board members also raised concerns about grading and topography, especially in environmentally sensitive locations. One board member asked whether the plan could include topographic contours to make it easier to confirm whether future grading or massing would alter site character or stormwater flow. The board's staff noted that final conservation commission approvals and any engineering conditions will address grading and drainage on the lots, but several members asked staff to look at adding topography requirements for similar proof plans going forward.
Steven Morris, an immediate abutter, spoke in support of the application. After further brief discussion, Board member John (board member) moved to approve the application with the staff recommendations; Board member Joe (board member) seconded and the board voted unanimously to approve with conditions as drafted by staff. The motion included a requirement that town engineering comments be addressed before final approvals and that subdivision paperwork be finalized within the timeline required by the board.
Board members asked staff to schedule a future agenda item to discuss rear-lot special-permit practice and any needed clarification to the subdivision regulations and bylaw language.
