Planning board endorses Summer Street ANR after court remand, debate over access through Norwell

The Scituate Central Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan on Oct. 9 to divide a large Summer Street parcel into two lots after a land‑court remand ordered the board to reconsider a modified plan.

The applicant’s representative read the court remand into the record, noting the judge remanded the case to the planning board to consider a modified plan that shifts frontage so that a northern driveway is captured on the proposed lot. Attorney Jeff Delissian (who addressed the board) said the remand directed the board to determine whether the revised plan requires subdivision approval under the Subdivision Control Law.

Town counsel (Mr. Bert) and planning staff (Brian) told the board the law is ambiguous when a parcel crosses municipal lines; the board heard that Norwell’s planning board had already endorsed the plan. Mr. Bert said reasonable interpretations exist on both sides and that the board must decide whether the plan “shows a subdivision.” Planning staff noted case law that limits a town’s review to land within its jurisdiction, but also said there are factual situations where frontage and access across a municipal boundary can be treated in different ways.

Some members pressed the applicant to show physical driveway access on the Scituate portion of the lot; others said the plan shows adequate frontage and that Norwell’s endorsement and recorded easements and permits (common‑driveway permit, special permits and orders of conditions) support the applicants’ position. The applicant’s team told the board the revised plan includes area that captures the northernmost driveway entrance.

After extended discussion about jurisdiction, frontage and access, the board voted to endorse the ANR plan, finding that each lot shown on the plan has adequate frontage and that the division is not a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law. The endorsement language notes there is adequate frontage on Summer Street for both lots and that access and utility easements provide access to Lot 2; the motion recognizes Norwell’s endorsement and recorded permits.

The planning board did not attach a requirement that the applicant secure a common‑driveway permit in Scituate as a condition of the ANR endorsement; staff advised that driveway permits are separate zoning or permitting matters and outside the scope of a form/ANR endorsement. The board recorded that the endorsement does not waive the town’s right to require a driveway or access permits if it later determines it has jurisdiction to require them.

The endorsement follows prior litigation on the parcel; the applicant said the presiding judge toured the site and encouraged the parties to submit a revised plan. The board’s decision notes the plan and accompanying materials, including the remand order and Norwell’s vote, were provided in the meeting packet.

Because the ANR endorsement addresses narrow plan/form questions rather than the full set of zoning or driveway permits, remaining permitting matters such as a common‑driveway permit, any building permits, and wetland or conservation conditions remain outstanding and must be pursued with the appropriate town offices.