Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board unanimously denies request to add fourth lot to shared Scenic Highway driveway
Summary
The Bourne Planning Board unanimously denied an application to add a fourth lot to an existing three‑lot shared driveway on Scenic Highway, citing pedestrian/vehicle safety, missing erosion controls, and potential circumvention of subdivision rules; the denial followed testimony about an unpermitted foundation and unsettled MassDOT/curb‑cut documentation.
The Bourne Planning Board on May 28 unanimously denied a request to amend an existing shared‑driveway special permit to serve a fourth lot at 471 Scenic Highway, concluding the proposal did not meet the board’s safety and subdivision‑control standards.
Applicant representative Adam Flynn and owner Thomas (Tommy) Papis presented a traffic study and said discussions with MassDOT supported consolidated access rather than multiple curb cuts. Flynn said recent state road improvements and a median will increase visibility, and the traffic consultant concluded an incremental increase of one vehicle every 15 minutes during peak hours would not materially affect safety.
Several board members, citing their own experience and the road’s existing high speeds, expressed strong safety concerns. One commissioner said widening typically increases vehicle speeds and called the existing arrangement “an accident waiting to happen.” Planning staff also found the applicant had not provided required erosion‑control documentation, drainage information, lot calculations, and confirmed the board’s prior approval had explicitly limited additional lots served by the driveway.
During the hearing the applicants acknowledged that a foundation had been installed for the fourth lot before the board had approved it and before access was demonstrated; the owner apologized and described it as a mistake arising from a filing/miscommunication with family members and contractors. The owner said the foundation could be removed if required.
After hearing testimony and reviewing the record, a planning board member moved to deny the amendment on the grounds that the proposal failed to meet special permit criteria for pedestrian and vehicular safety, lacked erosion and stormwater mitigations, and appeared to circumvent subdivision control. The motion to deny passed unanimously.
The decision requires the record be updated and the applicant to address the enforcement issue separately; the board closed public comment and adjourned the meeting.
