Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Three Lot Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves three‑lot subdivision, defers dispute over PUD setbacks
Summary
The Town of Berlin planning commission voted to record a three‑lot subdivision while explicitly declining to change or confirm any PUD setback requirements; commissioners directed a later, separate review to reconcile 25 years of inconsistent records and possible revisions to the master plan.
The Town of Berlin planning commission voted to approve the recordation of a three‑lot subdivision while making clear that the action does not change or confirm any existing planned unit development (PUD) setback requirements. Speaker 2 moved to approve the three lots "with the caveat that no setback requirements are being discussed and they are not approved," and the motion was carried by voice vote.
The commission and applicants framed the vote as a narrow, procedural step to allow recording of the lots and permit the applicant (referred to in the hearing as Mr. Purnell) to pursue business activity, while deferring any decision about setbacks or future subdivision into building lots. Speaker 4 recommended that "this approval is for the 3 lots, but that the master plan needs to be revised with all of the necessary data" before any subsequent approvals. The transcript records a single audible "Aye" on the voice vote; no roll‑call tally was recorded.
The caveat reflected a deeper disagreement between applicants and staff over which version of the PUD and its setbacks governs. Multiple speakers said the original PUD/master plan dates to 2005, but staff and some commission members said Berlin's internal records are incomplete and inconsistent. Speaker 5 described the town files as "woefully lacking" and proposed that Troy (named in the transcript) present a chronology of changes so the planning commission can "start from this date and move forward" rather than attempting to relitigate 25 years of revisions.
Applicant representatives said they had construction drawings and approvals from outside reviewers completed in 2022 but that the town's internal files did not reflect those approvals. Speaker 1 said they spent about $5,000 to obtain those approvals from outside reviewers but could not find corresponding town records.
Commissioners characterized the evening's vote as limited to recordation: the three lots were preliminarily approved previously and the commission agreed to finalize recording now, with the understanding that any future request to change setbacks or to subdivide into building lots will require supplemental filings and potentially a revised PUD. Speaker 4 and others urged that when the applicant returns, the submission should include an updated master plan and the necessary documentation so "it's clear what is being approved" and so the public record is legible.
The commission did not take any additional formal actions on setbacks during the meeting. A separate session was proposed to review historical approvals and reconcile discrepancies in town records before any substantive change to PUD setbacks or related approvals.
