Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wigs Road Cluster topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board preliminarily approves 38‑lot cluster plan after legal debate over town‑road acreage
Summary
Developers and counsel debated whether acreage to be dedicated as town roads should be excluded from unconstrained land for density calculations; the board preliminarily adopted a resolution excluding town‑road acreage and set the maximum lot count at 38 for the 71 Wigston Road cluster plan.
Pleasant Valley, June 10, 2026 — The Pleasant Valley Planning Board narrowly framed how to compute density for a proposed cluster subdivision at 71 Wigston Road, adopting a preliminary resolution that excludes acreage to be dedicated as town roads from the unconstrained‑land calculation and yielding a maximum of 38 lots for a forthcoming formal application.
Jeff Kaine, representing 71 Wigston Road LLC, and counsel Rich Olsen presented the developer’s cluster (conservation) plan and said the constraint map supports up to 40 lots under one reading of the code. Kaine told the board the displayed plan was chosen for aesthetics and acknowledged other layouts are possible that might require no town roads.
Town counsel (Jim) told the board such a calculation must account for ‘‘other applicable conditions’’ in state law and local code, noting that lands to be dedicated as town roads must be conveyed to the town by ‘‘a full warranty and covenant deed,’’ a requirement he said supports excluding town‑road acreage from the unconstrained lands used to calculate maximum lots. ‘‘Lands which are going to be dedicated to the town as town roads have to be conveyed to the town by a full warranty and covenant deed,’’ he said.
Applicant counsel disputed the interpretation, arguing that the unconstrained‑lands definition does not deduct town roads and that a theoretical plan with only private driveways could support the higher lot count. Board members noted the board has discretion to require a lower number of lots under cluster subdivision rules and discussed including needed waivers (section 8219M2) for cul‑de‑sac length and lot counts to guide the formal application.
The board also discussed fire and life‑safety considerations: whether dead‑end streets would serve more than 10 lots or exceed the ~800‑foot guidance and whether an emergency access (suggested by the fire life safety advisory) should be added; the developer said a state highway (Salt Point Turnpike) entrance would be undesirable but that emergency access options could be examined.
After discussion, the board adopted a preliminary resolution that excludes lands to be dedicated to the town as town roads from the unconstrained acreage calculation, yielding a preliminary maximum of 38 lots. The resolution was described as preliminary and non‑binding; the board instructed the applicant to submit a formal application for review and to consider necessary waivers and public‑safety comments as the plan is refined.
What happens next: The developer may submit a formal application based on the 38‑lot calculation; staff and the fire/life safety advisory may provide further reviews and the board retains discretion to reduce the lot count or impose conditions at final approval.
