Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant tables Billy’s Way subdivision after frontage and private‑road questions
Summary
A proposed two‑lot subdivision for Tax Map 4 Lot 12‑1 on Billy’s Way and Main Street was presented by the applicant’s engineer but was tabled after the Planning Board identified frontage and private‑road constraints; the board recommended seeking a ZBA variance and will notify abutters after ZBA consultation.
William Hall of S.E.C. & Associates presented a subdivision application for Tax Map 4 Lot 12‑1, a 6.7‑acre parcel with roughly 200 feet of frontage on Main Street and about 871 feet along Billy’s Way. The proposal would create two lots: proposed lot 4‑12‑1 (2.1 acres) containing the existing single‑family dwelling, well and septic; and proposed lot 4‑12‑3 (approximately 4.6 acres) containing an unfinished duplex that the application notes as unbuildable.
Hall told the board that wetlands had been mapped and delineated by wetlands scientist Timothy Ferwerda and that wetlands occur near Main Street and at the rear of the property. The uplands were described as flat to moderately sloped, with soils ranging from well to excessively well drained.
Board members raised two legal and technical hurdles. Chip Current explained that under town zoning the Planning Board cannot create a new lot on a private road; a lot on a State Class I–V highway must be dedicated to the town before it can be counted as frontage for a subdivision. Current advised the applicant that the board’s authority does not allow creation of a lot on a private roadway and recommended the applicant consider a variance before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) if they wish to proceed. The board also noted that frontage need not be ‘usable’ in the literal sense but must be present on an accepted road or a town‑dedicated way.
Given those constraints, Chip Current recommended either withdrawing the application for a refund (less the cost of certified notices) or tabling it to allow the applicant to seek a ZBA opinion. The applicant chose to table the application. The board will not re‑notice the application; instead, the clerk will send letters to abutters after the applicant meets with the ZBA.
Next steps: the applicant is expected to consult the ZBA about a frontage/variance pathway. The Planning Board’s file notes that no land disturbances or improvements are proposed at this time, and that note 11 on the plans marks the duplex lot as unbuildable until further action.
