Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Easement request for 20 Tracey Lane seen as premature; Committee seeks more information
Summary
A petitioner asked the Finance Committee to recommend granting a construction easement over a narrow Town parcel at 20 Tracey Lane to access rear lots; committee members raised concerns about compensation, abutter notice, maintenance responsibility and timing and indicated they were not prepared to support the article as presented.
The Finance Committee reviewed a Select Board‑sponsored warrant article (Article 19) requesting a construction easement over a narrow Town‑owned parcel at 20 Tracey Lane so a landowner can access the rear of an approximately 8‑acre parcel and create two buildable lots. Fred Turkington introduced the article; petitioner Dr. Gary Bubly described the subdivision intent and need for access. Attorney Robert Shelmerdine said the Town parcel is about 40 feet wide, was created as a proposed way in a 1992 subdivision, and that a water line runs across the Bubly property and the Town parcel. Shelmerdine said the Town would retain ownership while the petitioner would construct improvements and receive pass‑and‑repass rights subject to Planning Board approvals.
Committee members pressed for clarity on whether the requested easement would be temporary (construction only) or effectively permanent once a roadway or driveway is established, and they sought details about compensation to the Town for enabling development. Members also expressed concern that abutters had not been notified and that potential impacts to neighboring properties (including proximity to homes and outdoor spaces) had not been assessed. Questions were raised about long‑term maintenance responsibility if the access became a public road versus a private driveway and who would pay for restoring the roadway if water infrastructure beneath it required repair.
Members said the request appeared premature because it was being considered before Planning Board review and lacked essential information on compensation, notification and maintenance. Multiple members indicated they were not prepared to support the article in its current form and the Committee did not take a vote. Mr. Turkington noted that access must be established before further permitting because the lots are currently landlocked, but the Committee requested more detailed proposals, including consideration of sale versus easement and better notice to abutters, before issuing a recommendation.
