Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant revises 308 Melbourne subdivision to avoid removing village tree; board seeks building determination
Summary
Applicant for 308 Melbourne presented a revised subdivision Jan. 7 that drops proposed tree removal and a new driveway in favor of a shared driveway using the existing curb cut; the planning board directed staff to seek a building department determination and flagged potential nonconformity and variance issues to resolve before approval.
The planning board held a workshop on a revised subdivision plan for 308 Melbourne on Jan. 7, where applicant counsel Paul Noto said the new submission removes the proposed driveway and tree removal from the previously approved plan and instead proposes a shared driveway using the existing curb cut.
"We came up with a new plan, which eliminates the new driveway. It eliminates the infiltration system. It eliminates the tree removal, and we essentially are gonna use the existing driveway, and make it a shared driveway with the proposed lot too," Noto said, describing the intent to reduce disruption and retain existing trees where possible.
Board staff and members noted that the approval had lapsed and that a building‑department determination letter is required to re‑enter the process. Staff cautioned that placing a new lot line where an existing driveway sits could create a preexisting nonconformity under the five‑foot side setback rule; in that case the board would need to consider easements or variances to address the issue.
Staff summarized options the board is likely to expect from an applicant: a slightly tweaked site configuration to avoid impacts, or demonstration that easements and variances are the appropriate tools where a compliant solution is infeasible. The applicant said they prefer the least disruptive option and remain open to minor adjustments.
One board member said they would recuse themselves from deliberations because they live nearby and had done so previously; the board agreed to proceed without that member for this application. The board asked staff to request the building department issue a zoning determination as quickly as possible so the item can be scheduled for a public hearing informed by that letter and the consultant memos.
No final approval or vote was taken. The board’s next procedural steps are to obtain the building determination, confirm whether variances or an easement will be required, and then hold a noticed public hearing on the updated submission.
