Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Driveway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables request for second driveway at 36 Green Null Drive after neighborhood concerns
Summary
The Board of Selectmen tabled a decision on an accessory-driveway request at 36 Green Null Drive after neighbors and planning referrals recommended against a double-driveway pattern; the applicant proposed grass-filled pavers and time-limited permits to minimize visual impact.
A request to install a second driveway at 36 Green Null Drive to serve a mother–daughter accessory apartment was tabled by the Brookfield Board of Selectmen on June 1.
William Basharat, who identified himself as representing the property owners, told the board the proposed new cut would provide safer winter access for the household’s older resident and that alternatives — including extending an existing driveway — were impractical because of slope and distance. He said the applicants are willing to pave only the first 10 feet to satisfy the highway department and install grass-filled pavers beyond that so the driveway would appear “almost invisible.”
Planning and zoning referrals and the inland wetlands commission had returned negative recommendations, and selectmen said the primary concern was preserving the existing single-driveway neighborhood character. The board noted that driveway authority in some cases bypasses zoning procedures that would otherwise allow a full public hearing and appeal, which complicates review.
Rather than deny the application outright, selectmen agreed to table the item to allow additional fact-finding and engagement: a face-to-face meeting with land-use staff and zoning representatives, a visual rendering of the proposed paver solution, and the presence of absent Selectman Dunn at a future discussion. The board instructed staff to re-notify members and the applicants when a special meeting or workshop is scheduled.
No formal vote tally was recorded in the meeting transcript; the motion to table was passed by the board at the June 1 meeting.
What's next: The board expects to reconvene the discussion after staff and zoning have reviewed the visual materials and after at least one additional member can participate.
