Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRB weighs whether to challenge court‑ordered agricultural restriction on Wolf Lane parcel; moves to deliberative session
Summary
Jessica and Michael Cypes asked the DRB to remove a court‑ordered agricultural restriction on a Wolf Lane lot so they can convert a studio barn to a residence. Board members split on legal authority—the restriction is embedded in an Environmental Court order—and moved the item to deliberative session to consider legal pathways and possible conditions.
Owners Jessica and Michael Cypes sought preliminary approval on Wednesday to subdivide 60 Wolf Lane and remove a recorded restriction that limits a particular building envelope to agricultural uses. The DRB did not decide the request; after extensive legal discussion the board closed the hearing and moved to deliberation to weigh whether the condition was "critical" under the Hildebrand/Stow Highlands framework and whether the town or court should be the vehicle to change it.
The applicants said the studio barn on the larger proposed lot already exists and that changing the recorded restriction would allow conversion to a residence without new construction. They provided neighborhood consents and said they had consulted the Environmental Court’s free legal service. The applicants argued the restriction was not “critical” to the original subdivision approval and that circumstances have changed since the condition was imposed.
Board members and staff reviewed the record and cautioned that the restriction appears in the DRB decision and was subsequently incorporated into an Environmental Court order. Several members said the DRB lacks authority to unilaterally remove a court‑ordered condition and recommended the applicants pursue an amendment in environmental court or seek town support for a court filing. Board discussion focused on the Hildebrand/Stow Highlands test: whether the challenged condition was essential to issuance of the original permit, whether facts or law have changed, and whether removal would undermine prior findings.
The board did not vote to grant the requested removal at the meeting. After public support from neighbors, the board closed the hearing and voted to enter deliberative session to consider the legal standards and potential outcomes; the DRB indicated it may condition any favorable action on court amendment or further covenant changes. No final decision was recorded at this meeting.
