Developer seeks multiple waivers for Hothole Pond subdivision; board defers decision and schedules resubmission and solicitor review

The Planning Board opened a contentious public hearing on an amendment request to a recorded subdivision (Hothole Pond Road) in which developer Ryan Taber requested four waivers: allow Cape Cod (asphalt) berm in place of vertical granite curbing on the private common drive; limit required new street trees to the cul‑de‑sac area (taking credit for existing vegetation where permitted); allow a common private drive to exceed 1,000 feet; and permit 3 inches of hot‑mix asphalt pavement rather than the regulatory 4‑inch thickness.

Staff advised the board that the waiver for pavement thickness could not be considered because the applicant had failed to pursue a timely appeal to the superior court after the prior board decision; in staff's view that waiver was therefore statutorily ineligible for reconsideration. The other three waiver requests remained eligible for consideration but generated intense questioning from board members on safety, long‑term durability and precedent.

Taber argued construction costs have risen sharply since the earlier approvals and that Cape Cod berms and other changes are more affordable and appropriate for a private, wooded development. He also said existing vegetation and topography reduce the need for planted street trees. Several board members and staff pushed back on relying on cost alone as a basis for a waiver and asked for concrete evidence: plan sheets showing the claimed conditions, cost estimates, stormwater/drainage details, and verification that tree locations meet the regulations' distance/ten‑foot criteria. Members also noted that approving the road length change could trigger additional subdivision standards (wider pavement and different construction standards) if the applicant moves from eight to nine units.

Because the application omitted updated plan sheets and full documentation needed to evaluate the requests, the board elected not to vote on all waivers at the hearing. Instead the board agreed to continue the public hearing to Jan. 21, 2026, require a formal resubmission by Dec. 17, and invited staff to seek a legal opinion from the city solicitor on the limits of the board's authority regarding previously decided items. The board specifically instructed the applicant to submit any revised plan set showing the proposed changes (including a nine‑unit layout if the applicant seeks to add a unit tied to the road extension), cost substantiation and fire‑department review of any longer driveway/cul‑de‑sac.