Planning Board approves five‑lot approval‑required plan for Maryann/Pinecrest area; rear‑lot special permit negotiations to follow
Summary
After extended public comment and neighbor concerns about parking and density, the Planning Board on Tuesday approved a five‑lot approval‑required plan for property at Maryann Drive and Pinecrest and instructed the applicant to return with a rear‑lot special permit where the board will negotiate any deed restrictions and mitigation.
The Planning Board voted to approve an approval‑required (AR) plan for a five‑lot subdivision near Maryann Drive and Pinecrest on Tuesday after an hours‑long public hearing that included dozens of neighbors and detailed presentation from the applicant’s attorney, Dan Malloy.
What was proposed: The applicant, Joe Manning, presented a revised plan reducing a prior eight‑lot concept to a fully conforming five‑lot plan that required no waivers. Malloy said the proposal was intended as a proof plan and that the applicant’s preferred path is a rear‑lot special‑permit subdivision that would avoid building a public road. “The intention here is to say and show everybody what can be done by right essentially is 5 lots,” Malloy told the board.
Public concerns: Dozens of abutters and residents spoke to the board about on‑street parking, traffic, neighborhood character and whether the board should approve a plan that could later be implemented without additional public input. Speakers described cars parking in private yards, tight single‑lane conditions on Maryann and Pinecrest, and concerns about stormwater and sewer impacts. Attorney Dan Bailey, representing nearby resident Art Gasparo, urged the board to combine the AR endorsement with subsequent review of any rear‑lot special permit rather than approve the AR plan as a default outcome.
Board discussion: Planning staff and several board members emphasized two competing risks: approving an AR plan exposes the town to the possibility the applicant could pursue an approval‑not‑required (ANR) path that would produce development without further board negotiation, while denying the plan removes leverage to achieve community benefits such as year‑round deed restrictions. Multiple board members said they preferred negotiating protections during a rear‑lot special permit process but recognized the applicant’s right to seek ANR outcomes if the board declined the AR.
Vote and conditions: The board approved the AR plan as submitted (motion by Nat Lowell; second by Joe Topham) and recorded unanimous support. Members discussed that any later rear‑lot special‑permit application would be the venue to negotiate binding conditions including limits on dwelling counts, deed restrictions for year‑round occupancy on one or more lots, internal parking requirements and contributions to street improvements. Planning staff will return with a list of the technical conditions that will be required if the applicant files a rear‑lot application.
Ending and next steps: The board closed the public hearing and approved the AR plan; the applicant said he intends to return with a rear‑lot special‑permit application. Board members said they expect to use the special‑permit process to seek deed restrictions and parking containment so the neighborhood’s parking and circulation impacts can be managed.
