Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boundary Survey Lot Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boundary survey leaves Highland Road petition unresolved; Board of Appeals continues lot‑split hearing
Summary
A petition by Christopher Hanson to split Lot 5 (Highland Road) and create two lots with a common driveway was continued after the applicant presented a new survey that may shift the Spencer–Charlton town line; neighbors raised septic, drainage and equipment concerns
Christopher Hanson, the applicant and recorded owner of the parcel at Lot 5 Highland Road, asked the Charlton Board of Appeals on Jan. 16 for a continuance while a new GPS/satellite survey of a disputed town boundary is reviewed by state and assessor staff.
Hanson told the board he commissioned a current survey after abutters questioned where the historic town line fell; the surveyor used monuments and GPS work that Hanson said could change whether his parcel has frontage on Ethia Road and therefore whether he needs a frontage variance from the board. Hanson said the parcel is about 2.5 acres.
Charlton Moore, chair of the Board of Appeals, explained that if the updated survey shows the lot does have frontage on Ethia Road, the applicant may not need a frontage variance but could still need a variance for area and a special permit from the Planning Board for any driveway. The zoning enforcement officer advised that the assessors have forwarded materials to MassGIS and that matching 1931 plans and a 1996 Kaczynski plan exist and will be checked for consistency.
Neighbors raised concerns about construction activity, public safety and infrastructure. A resident identifying herself as a longtime abutter at 98 Shore Road said Hanson has been “rude” and alleged construction has left open foundations and damaged access. Lisa Camilleri of 602 Highland Drive said the proposed common driveway would run next to her property and argued the land may not support two three‑bedroom houses; she was advised that the Board of Health oversees septic (Title 5) and that the Planning Board reviews stormwater and drainage.
Karen of 47 Cranberry Valley Road and other neighbors also objected to the concept plan and said equipment movement has damaged private drives. The building inspector advised that complaints about gasoline or potential arson should be directed to the fire and police departments; zoning does not enforce those criminal or fire‑safety issues.
The board agreed to a 30‑day continuance while the assessors and state review the survey and the applicant seeks formally recorded confirmation. The continuance was moved by Charlton Moore, seconded by a board member and approved by voice vote. The board noted that if the survey review will extend beyond the statutory deadline of Feb. 22, 2025, the applicant should submit a written extension request.
No variance or permit was granted at the meeting. The outcome will depend on the survey verification, any necessary variances for lot area, and subsequent Planning Board action for driveway access or special permits.
