Applicant proposes private drive and lot split on Youngs Hill Road; board says project may be feasible if rules met

Zachary Roller, an applicant and presenter, told the Loudon Planning Board he represents a cousin who owns a roughly 40-acre parcel on Youngs Hill Road and asked whether the board would consider a private road and lot split so his family could move onto the property and help care for the owner.

Roller said the property currently has roughly 555 feet of frontage on Youngs Hill Road and one existing house. He proposed constructing a privately engineered road about 850 feet long with a 24-foot travel surface (he noted 22 feet is required by regulation) and a 57-foot turnaround radius so that two lots could be served without creating two separate driveways onto Youngs Hill. He also said a roughly 75-foot wet area appears on GIS, he has not completed a survey, and some proposed lot lines may trigger setbacks or a waiver request because of lot-shape rules.

The board focused on several practical and regulatory points. Members said the proposal would likely be acceptable only if the private road were engineered to town specifications and if the applicant can demonstrate the subdivision will meet setback and dimensional standards once a survey is completed. One member noted the parcel’s current frontage (555 feet) and explained the applicable frontage threshold in the AFP district — which the applicant cited — would not allow a conventional frontage split, so the private-road approach is the only viable route to create a second house lot without falling below frontage minimums.

Board members flagged three particular items Roller must resolve before the board would approve an application: a stamped survey and a full subdivision plan that shows exact setbacks and dimensions; confirmation whether the 75-foot wet spot is a jurisdictional wetland (he showed it as a wet spot from GIS but had not field-delineated it); and whether the proposed lots would meet the land development regulation requirement on lot length-to-width ratio (the applicant said the new lots would be wider than long and would therefore likely require a waiver). A member also reminded Roller that private roads proposed as a means to create frontage are permitted only when the road is built to town specs and paved if the regulations require it.

Board members suggested alternatives Roller could consider if the private road proved infeasible, including a detached accessory dwelling unit on the existing house property; Roller said a 1,000-square-foot accessory dwelling would be tight for his family of three as they expect to grow to four members.

Roller said he will obtain a professional boundary survey and prepare a subdivision plan. The board repeatedly told him to return with those materials and any requested waivers; members said that, based on the sketch and the questions raised, they did not see any absolute regulatory barrier that would “kill” the project but that formal review and confirmation of setbacks, wetlands, road engineering and lot ratios would govern the final decision.

Next steps: Roller said he will arrange a survey and prepare formal subdivision plans and return to the planning board for review and any required waivers or zoning relief.