Peter McKay told the Planning Board on Jan. 9 that he and his brother have lived on the same 40,000‑square‑foot property for nearly 40 years and want to subdivide it so each house can be separately owned while preventing new development. McKay said the family is seeking ‘‘individual ownership’’ and emphasized the split would not change the number of houses on the land.

The board’s discussion focused on legal and technical limits: staff warned of a potential spot‑zoning challenge that could draw Attorney General review, and planning staff asked for a detailed survey, a specific deed‑restriction draft and clarity about ground‑cover impacts. Staff also flagged a cut‑and‑paste error in the warrant text (a CTEC/CTech reference) that the applicant must correct.

Board members and neighbors debated options that would reduce legal risk while achieving the family’s goal — for example, expanding any article to include adjacent lots, seeking a Zoning Board of Appeals variance, or using a tightly worded year‑round deed restriction coupled with the town’s new deed‑restriction program. The board voted to continue the McKay article to Jan. 30 to allow the sponsor to work with staff on a recordable deed restriction, site survey information and clean warrant language.

Next steps: proponents will submit the deed‑restriction language and any site plans requested by staff ahead of the Jan. 30 meeting so the board and public can assess the proposal’s legal vulnerability and potential community effects.