Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and planning board press owner to slim design at 35 Maria Road; hearing continued to Aug. 19
Summary
After extensive concerns from neighbors and several planning board members about scale, traffic and wastewater, the applicant for 35 Maria Road asked for more time and the board continued the site‑plan hearing to August 19, 2026 so the design can be revised and neighbors consulted.
Brian Holding, the owner and applicant for 35 Maria Road, told the Eastham Planning Board that he planned to demolish the existing house and build a substantially larger dwelling and that he had revised landscaping, lighting and driveway plans since the last hearing. "I made some changes to the landscape plan. I made some changes to the exterior lighting plan," Holding said, adding he had adjusted driveway openings to improve sightlines.
Board members and neighbors said the revised materials did not address the primary concern: the structure’s size and the intensity of use. "This project is completely out of character with the neighborhood," said planning board member Michelle Vion, who, although not eligible to vote, said she would have voted against the project in its current form. Vion noted the plan shows roughly 4,713 square feet of gross floor area compared with a neighborhood average she cited as about 1,647 square feet, and raised concerns about circulation, pedestrian safety, and the capacity of the proposed microfast 75 septic system to handle wastewater from a house of that size.
Other board members pressed similar themes. Evan asked whether the applicant had met with neighbors since the last hearing; Holding acknowledged he had not directly conversed with abutters and said doing so while living off‑Cape had been difficult. Several members urged the applicant to reduce the building’s scale, reconsider the garage orientation and engage neighbours before returning. "The real change I’d like to see is to make the whole house smaller to fit the neighborhood," one member said.
Neighbors amplified those concerns at public comment. Angela Getty (20 Maria Road) highlighted discrepancies in the filing’s site‑coverage and GFA figures and said even using a higher local average the proposed home would remain substantially larger than surrounding houses. A letter read by Moira Piscatelli (for Janet Benjamins, 45 Maria Road) warned that clearing mature trees would reduce canopy and habitat and could increase nitrogen loading to groundwater; Tom Flity (90 Maria Road) asked whether the owner would commit to helping maintain the private dirt road and suggested traffic‑calming measures.
Town staff and counsel clarified options for the applicant, noting that a denial of site‑plan approval must be explicitly tied to bylaw criteria and that withdrawal without prejudice restarts the filing process. After discussion about whether the board should propose a target size, and with several members counseling against specifying a single square‑footage number, Holding said he needed time to redesign and consult neighbors. He asked for a continuance and said August would be the soonest realistic date to return with more substantial revisions.
The board voted to continue case PB2026‑01 to the Planning Board meeting on August 19, 2026. The chair announced the continuance and recorded a unanimous roll‑call in favor of the continuance with the six members present voting yes. Holding said he would work with an architect, meet neighbors and consult with planning staff before the continued hearing.
Next steps: the applicant intends to revise the design, reach out to neighbors and return to the Planning Board on August 19 for a continued site‑plan review.
