Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Frontage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pownal planners split on whether a private road can cure a 67-foot nonconforming lot
Summary
The Pownal Planning Board debated whether construction of a private road on Hodsdon Road could legally create frontage and make a 67-foot parcel buildable, with staff advising a revised/amended-subdivision process and residents urging traffic and road-condition studies.
Chairman Todd Mellin and the Town of Pownal Planning Board spent most of their Jan. 21 meeting debating whether a private road could legally cure a 67-foot nonconforming lot on Hodsdon Road and make it suitable for a single-family house.
Michelle Harrison, the property owner, told the board she owns Map 7, Lot 35 and 35-01 and that one parcel has only 67 feet of frontage. "I am not here to submit an application. I am here for clarification from both the CEO and Board," Harrison said as she described historical lot splits and conflicting guidance from staff and counsel.
The disagreement centered on how the town defines frontage and which approval path applies. "By definition, frontage requires a lot line that abuts the road — you can't take frontage off a driveway," Chairman Todd Mellin said, arguing a private road carved entirely within a single parcel would function as a driveway and therefore not create legal frontage. CEO Tim Giddinge countered that earlier local practice and the ordinance definition of a revised or amended subdivision provide a path for finishing an existing subdivision and adding a private road. "It is our attorney's opinion this needs to be handled as a revised subdivision," Giddinge said.
Board members discussed three principal options for the applicant: submit an amended (revised) subdivision to record a new private road and show compliance with subdivision standards; combine parcels and pursue a backlot or conservation-subdivision approach; or seek a variance from the Board of Appeals to permit a dwelling despite reduced frontage. Giddinge and the town planner (NorthStar Planning) recommended treating the request as an amended/revised subdivision so the Planning Board can verify all applicable ordinance criteria are satisfied.
Several board members cautioned about precedent. "Just because it has happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean it should be the way forward," Orion Breen said, noting prior approvals do not resolve what the ordinance currently allows. Brian Stornelli and others raised concerns that repeatedly allowing private roads to render nonconforming lots buildable could undermine the ordinance's minimum frontage intent.
Neighbors urged caution on safety and capacity. Dan St. Denis and other abutters asked the board to require a traffic-impact study and an engineered appraisal of Poland Range Road and nearby Brown Road before additional development proceeds. "The safety of the road is a major concern," St. Denis said, describing freeze-thaw damage, poor drainage and school-bus routing on the local roads.
The board did not take a vote on the Hodsdon Road question. Instead members advised the applicant on materials she should provide if she pursues an amended subdivision (road design, setbacks, soils and wetland studies where applicable) or, alternatively, to consider a variance to avoid full road construction costs. Staff said some checklist items can be waived at the board’s discretion, but the board emphasized it must be able to verify compliance if it accepts an amended-subdivision filing. The CEO and planning consultant will continue vetting the proper procedural path with the town attorney and NorthStar Planning.
The board invited Harrison to return with clarified materials; it also scheduled workshops and attorney/consultant review ahead of anticipated hearings in March. No formal decision was made at the Jan. 21 meeting.
