ANR review for Hanson property held; board pauses endorsement pending title clarification

The Town of Charlton Planning Board reviewed an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for a proposed division near Hanson/Ether Drive on May 7, 2025, but did not endorse the plan because of a title and town-line discrepancy.

What happened: landowner Chris (identified in the record as Chris, landowner) presented surveys and a confirmatory deed showing a town-line alignment that differs from the recorded boundary used by the town assessor and town records. The applicant’s survey shows that a private road (Ether Drive) has been openly used for decades and that some land on the north side of the private way may, in practice, be held or used as road; confirmatory-deed language and an existing 1996 plan were discussed as competing references to the boundary line.

Board guidance and attorney advice: Town counsel (Jonathan Silverstein) advised the board that title discrepancies and record ownership questions should be resolved before the planning board endorses an ANR that could be construed to validate the applicant’s claim to disputed land. The board and staff agreed with counsel’s recommendation: staff advised the applicant to revise the plan to reflect the earlier, recorded 1996 plan line (the ‘‘old town line’’) and to return with a corrected plan that aligns the Lot A/Lot B split to that record line. The applicant said his attorney’s position is that a confirmatory deed supports his depiction, but counsel recommended resolution of the discrepancy—either through assessor confirmation or a title action—before endorsement.

What the board requested: planning staff asked the applicant to resubmit a plan that reflects the 1996 recorded alignment (the board indicated it would prefer to use the earlier line for endorsement) or to supply convincing title/assessor certification that the newer surveyed line is correct. Staff and the board noted that, even if the board were inclined to endorse the ANR geometrically, the planning board’s attorney cautioned that endorsing a plan that purports to alter or validate a disputed town line risks creating legal exposure for the town; counsel recommended the applicant resolve title issues first.

Result: the ANR was not signed at the May 7 meeting. The applicant indicated he will revise the plan using the 1996 record line and return; the board suggested staff contact legal counsel if the revised plan raises the same discrepancy. Planning staff recorded the ANR parcel (Lot 5A and remaining land) as “nonbuildable at this time” on the plan if the disputed road strip remains unresolved.

Why it matters: the board will not endorse a plan that could be interpreted as confirming records of ownership where a material title dispute exists. The board’s approach protects the town from unintentionally affirming a disputed boundary and preserves recourse for abutters or other landowners to pursue title resolution in Land Court if they wish.

Speakers and roles recorded in the transcript: the landowner (Chris), counsel Jonathan Silverstein (attorney referenced by staff), staff (Randy), and planning staff/Chair. The applicant’s attorney and surveyor were said to have provided the confirmatory deed and CAD files; staff asked the applicant to resubmit a plan that follows the 1996 recorded plan line or to provide assessor confirmation.