Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Split Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlton zoning board continues Highland Road lot-split variance amid title, frontage and wetlands questions
Summary
A petitioner seeking to split Lot 5 (Highland Road) into two lots was given 30 days to resolve questions about title, frontage and whether sufficient buildable area exists; the board flagged prescriptive easement, potential need to acquire additional area, and conservation/DEP review as determinative factors.
The Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals on April 8 continued a variance hearing for Lot 5 (Highland Road) for 30 days after extended discussion about ownership of a historic way through the parcel, frontage requirements, and wetlands/access constraints.
The petitioner, identified in the hearing as Chris, told the board that an unlaid historic way (referred to in the record as Ether Drive) cuts through the parcel and that a confirmatory deed and an 81X plan had been prepared; he sought to split the lot into two buildable parcels. Board members questioned whether the petitioner holds current marketable title to the strip of land where the drive lies and said resolving title could require a court action.
Board members expressed skepticism that the petition met the statutory hardship standard for a variance. One board member told the petitioner, "I don't think that you have a hardship," and said past ownership choices and the fact that the petitioner purchased multiple lots together undercut a claim of statutory hardship. The petitioner argued that the existence of the historic drive through the lot affects his ability to configure two conforming lots.
Board members and staff discussed technical and procedural options the petitioner might pursue before returning: amassing additional area through purchase or agreement with an abutter to reach required lot size and frontage; filing an ANR (approval-not-required) or ANR/ANR plan; consulting with town counsel or a title attorney to resolve whether the drive is prescriptive and whether the petitioner holds fee title; and awaiting conservation and DEP review if wetlands or riverfront crossings would be needed.
Conservation-related topics surfaced repeatedly: staff said a conservation line determination and any ORAD would influence whether access across the stream would be feasible and how many crossings might be required. The petitioner said he was willing to acquire additional area to avoid the variance if that would produce two conforming lots.
After discussion, a board member moved and a second was recorded to continue the matter for 30 days to allow the petitioner time to consult with counsel, clarify title/frontage, and confer with planning and conservation staff. The motion carried unanimously.
The board recorded three response options for the petitioner: withdraw (and refile later), continue (the option chosen), or have the board take a vote now (which some members said would likely result in denial and a two-year bar before reapplication). The petitioner was told to return in writing if the lot becomes conforming or to provide updated plans and legal clarification within the continuance period.
Quotes in this article are taken directly from the April 8 meeting transcript of the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals.
