Ordinance Committee defers Leachchester Drive zoning amendment after questions on survey, utilities and parking

The Ordinance Committee on Monday reviewed draft ordinance 2025-13 — an amendment to Section 260-32 of the zoning code and an associated access easement affecting Leachchester Drive — and voted to postpone action to the committee's next meeting for more detailed mapping, legal review and public input.

Committee Chair (the chair) said the committee conducted a site visit and that town staff will obtain a parcel survey to resolve conflicting claims about a narrow town-owned strip. "Tony's gonna get this survey from the town administrator," the chair said, noting poles and other features on the ground suggest parcel lines that may not match current records.

Why it matters: members said the lot in question (referred to during discussion as Lot 380) runs the length of Leachchester Drive and a resident-attorney’s survey claims the town-owned strip may be as narrow as 20 feet. If the town's property line is where the survey shows, public utilities and telephone poles could be sited on private property, complicating any parking or access restrictions tied to town land.

Committee member (Speaker 2), who drafted the original ordinance text, told colleagues that the Planning Board returned mainly technical wording suggestions but urged tailoring the ordinance so it would address Leachchester Drive's "quirks" without sweeping, townwide consequences. "The Planning Board's suggestions are fine — they're mostly wording, don't go to substance," the member said, and proposed an overlay district specific to Leachchester Drive to avoid unintentionally regulating other town parking lots.

Members debated scope and definitions. Several asked whether the ordinance should distinguish between "town parking lots" (for example, school lots) and other town property, and whether an overlay that covered the full length of Leachchester Drive would constitute spot zoning. Committee member (Speaker 2) said an overlay that encompassed the entire street would likely avoid spot-zoning concerns and that a formal public hearing would be required under zoning rules.

The committee discussed enforcement options raised in the draft — resident-only parking, registration, towing authority — and the risk that broad language could affect unrelated areas where no complaints have been made, including School Street and Barney's Pond. Committee members also raised safety and nuisance concerns cited by residents near the town-owned parcel, including abandoned vehicles and disruptive behavior.

On the legal side, members noted potential complications with easements and adverse possession: one committee member reminded the group that a paper-street adverse-possession rule does not apply if the town clearly owns the lot. Members asked staff and the solicitor to confirm easement locations, underlying utilities, and whether parts of the parcel include recorded utility easements that would limit possible restrictions.

Given outstanding mapping, ownership and drafting questions, the chair moved to defer consideration of ordinance 2025-13 to the next meeting to allow staff and committee members to refine the overlay approach, add clarifying definitions ("town property" v. "town parking lot") and plan required public hearings. The motion to defer was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee then adjourned.

Next steps: staff will obtain and circulate the survey, clarify which utilities and easements run through the parcel, and work with the drafter and planning staff on a tailored overlay proposal and a schedule for the required public hearing(s).