Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise safety, access and drainage concerns for proposed 3‑lot subdivision at 1573 Creek Street
Summary
Applicant Eric Olivas sought preliminary/final subdivision approval for three single-family lots at 1573 Creek Street. Neighbors voiced worries about construction and long-term access off the Tufa Glenn cul‑de‑sac, proximity to a town sanitary pump station and fire hydrant, winter plowing and stormwater drainage. Board closed public hearing but tabled the application pending additional engineering and pump‑station protection details.
Eric Olivas and his engineer presented a proposal on June 11 for a three-lot subdivision at 1573 Creek Street, describing a roughly 5.8-acre parcel divided into three single-family lots—about 0.9, 1.3 and 3.5 acres—served by existing water and sanitary mains with driveways proposed onto Creek Street and Tufa Glenn.
"We're requesting preliminary final subdivision approval for the proposed three lot subdivision," engineer Mike Boji told the board, outlining service laterals and a plan to avoid mapped steep-slope and woodland EPOD areas where possible. The applicant also proposed a 30-by-40 barn on lot three.
Neighbors who live on or near Tufa Glenn and Graham Creek Heights raised multiple concerns in public comment. Rick Vaughn (72 Tufa Glenn Drive) said he was not categorically opposed but worried that a driveway cut near the town sanitary pump station and a nearby fire hydrant would hinder winter plowing and emergency access, noting heavy equipment must access the pump station for maintenance. "My concern is that particular area as being the driveway in and out ... the truck comes in there, has to hook up on a winch and lift each of those doors up," Vaughn said.
Donald Weller (73 Tufa Glenn Drive) and other neighbors asked whether driveways could be shifted to Creek Street to avoid disturbing the cul‑de‑sac and to reduce construction traffic through a residential loop with young children. Several residents also cited potential impacts to deer and wildlife and asked for mitigation.
Board members asked staff and the applicant to coordinate with the town’s DPW and engineering department to ensure the pump station and hydrant would remain accessible and protected; the applicant said they would coordinate and consider bollards or other measures. Staff also flagged PRC comments on providing protection for the pump station. The board closed the public hearing and moved to table the application pending receipt of revised plans and written responses to the neighbors’ access, pump-station, and EPOD-avoidance concerns.
What’s next: The planning board asked the applicant to submit revised plans that address pump-station protection, evaluate whether access arrangements could be shifted toward Creek Street to reduce impacts on the cul‑de‑sac, and to provide any additional engineering or drainage information. The board tabled action to permit staff and the board to review those supplemental materials.
