Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Surplus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing committee tables plan to declare 47 Hamlet Street parcel surplus amid questions over conditions and ADU implications
Summary
The committee heard a request to declare a roughly 4,900 sq. ft. parcel behind 47 Hamlet Street surplus for sale to the adjacent homeowner under the city's 'yard sale' program, but tabled the item after councilors sought clearer written conditions, ownership clarification and assurances about accessory-dwelling-unit rules.
Planning Director Daniel McCarter told the housing committee on Jan. 12 that the owner of 47 Hamlet Street had asked to acquire a 4,900-square-foot parcel directly behind the house and that the city had subdivided the piece from school-owned land so it could be transferred.
“We're asking for this property to be declared surplus for the purpose of a yard sale,” McCarter said, describing maps and subdivision plans in the meeting packet. Under the city’s yard-sale practice the parcel would ordinarily be sold to an adjacent owner at $1 per square foot, with conditions limiting use to green space, parking or other accessory uses tied to the primary residence.
Councilors pressed for detail. Council President Giovanni Rodriguez and Councilor Mark LaPlante asked whether the parcel was legally school property or city property and whether the elementary-school committee had formally authorized the subdivision; McCarter said the school committee had voted in July to allow subdividing the parcel and the city now holds it as a separate parcel. Rodriguez emphasized the need for clarity about ownership: “City owned property is city owned property,” he said.
Members also sought written standard conditions before sending the matter to the full council. McCarter said he would provide a list of proposed conditions, including landscaping and stormwater review when applicable, and noted the sale would require the buyer to merge the parcel into their primary lot before development. Several councilors raised concerns that merging the lot could trigger state ADU rules; McCarter and others said an accessory dwelling unit could be allowed by right in certain circumstances once the parcel is merged, so the committee should be explicit about restrictions.
Councilor Rodriguez asked whether proceeds could be earmarked for a scholarship fund; the planning director said proceeds normally go into the city’s general fund and any dedicated use would require a separate procedure and is not part of the current motion. After extended questions, a motion to send the surplus declaration to the full council was made and a second was offered; Councilor LaPlante then moved to table for further clarification and documentation. The motion to table was adopted by voice vote.
The committee asked staff to circulate the subdivision documentation, a written set of proposed sale conditions, and a clear statement about whether and how state ADU law would affect permitted uses before the committee takes further action.
