Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 173 Skimhampton Reserve Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pushes back on request to use deeded reserve areas for private driveway at 173 Skimhampton Road
Summary
An applicant sought to convert an approved three-lot subdivision into two lots to allow separate driveways; planning staff opposed use of deeded reserve areas and multiple board members cited precedent and open-space protections, leaving the applicant without board support.
An applicant’s request to alter a 2011 minor-subdivision approval and to use town-owned reserved areas for private driveway access at 169–173 Skimhampton Road drew opposition from town planning staff and most town-board members on Tuesday.
Attorney John Tarbot, representing the applicant, said his clients would reduce an approved three-lot subdivision to two lots so each household could have its own driveway and that "the reduction density more than offset the 2 driveways 500 feet apart." He said the owners were willing to place easements on the land to prevent future resubdivision.
Planning department staff opposed the request, noting the reserved parcels were recorded for "recreational open space" and that the 2011 minor-subdivision approval included conditions that "no buildings or structures may be placed" within the areas depicted as reserved and that they must be "left in their natural state forever." Planning warned allowing private use of reserved areas could set a precedent, fragment habitat and weaken a long-used tool for open-space preservation.
Multiple board members echoed planning’s concerns. "Common driveways are typical features of planning in the town," planning staff said; Council member Kate (first name recorded in the transcript) stated the mitigation Tarbot offered did not offset the loss of deeded open space and that the reduced density could increase allowable building sizes and associated impacts. Other members said they did not see a demonstrated hardship and worried about precedent.
The applicant was advised to discuss possible compromise arrangements with the planning staff and returned to clients to consider options such as providing additional easement protections or compensatory parkland. The board did not approve the request at the work session; the supervisor stated that several members did not support using town-owned reserved areas for private access.
