Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Application 392 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Killingworth planners continue public hearing on two‑lot subdivision after map and easement issues

Killingworth Planning and Zoning Commission · May 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Killingworth Planning & Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on Application 392 (two‑lot conservation subdivision at 275 Rose Meat Hill Road) to May 20, citing mismatched survey acreage and incomplete easement language the land trust must review.

The Killingworth Planning & Zoning Commission on April 15 continued the public hearing on Application 392, a proposed two‑lot conservation subdivision at 275 Rose Meat Hill Road, after commissioners identified discrepancies between the map approved by Inland Wetlands and the drawings submitted to the commission and requested time to review final easement language with the Killingworth Land Conservation Trust.

Jonathan Norton, who said he is a Killingworth resident and was representing Jack B. Koy LLC and applicant Mike Berkin, described an easement draft based on a 2023 template and said attorneys for the applicant and the land trust were negotiating red lines. "My name is Jonathan Norton. I'm a resident of Killingworth on 18 Warickshire Drive," Norton said as he introduced the application and explained that the land trust requested a site walk and expected to vote at its first Monday‑in‑May meeting.

Why it mattered: commissioners and staff found that an easement plan pulled into CAD showed about 9.18 acres while Inland Wetlands had approved a layout of roughly 8.96 acres (presented in some materials as 8.9). The commission said the maps the commission approves must match what Wetlands approved and asked the applicant to correct and reconcile the drawings and provide the finalized easement language well before the next meeting so members can review it.

Commissioners also pressed for detail in easement language about permitted and restricted uses. Members discussed whether passive recreation, mowing/haying schedules, or alterations to existing outbuildings should be allowed and emphasized protecting wetlands and any identified cultural resources. The transcript references a phase‑one archaeological study of the site; commissioners asked that protections for any artifacts be clear in the easement.

A letter from the Killingworth Land Conservation Trust, read into the record, said the trust had discussed the proposed easement at its April meeting but needed additional time to review the April 14, 2025 survey map and to conduct a site visit before voting. The commission acknowledged that KLCT may tweak language following a walk‑down and requested draft red lines from the trust and the applicant in advance of the May meeting.

Action taken: a commissioner moved to continue the public hearing on Application 392 to the commission's May 20 meeting; Bill Toblin seconded and the voice motion carried. The commission directed the applicant to submit a corrected map that matches Wetlands' approved layout and to provide the proposed easement language with any red lines sufficiently in advance for commissioners to review.

Next steps: the parties planned a site walk next week and the land trust expected to vote at its first Monday‑in‑May meeting. The commission said the corrected map and easement draft should be submitted with enough lead time to allow commissioners to digest the materials prior to the May 20 meeting.