Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner seeks guidance for four‑lot subdivision on Peaked Hill Road
Summary
At a Jan. 28 Planning Board meeting, Brian Lacerte presented a Preliminary Conceptual Consultation for a proposed four‑lot subdivision of a 7.3‑acre parcel on Peaked Hill Road. Board members told him options include redesigning to three lots, acquiring land from an abutter, or seeking a variance from the ZBA.
Brian Lacerte, the applicant for Preliminary Conceptual Consultation 25PCC10, told the Bristol Planning Board on Jan. 28 that he purchased a 7.3‑acre parcel on Peaked Hill Road intending to rely on an existing five‑lot subdivision layout to finance construction of a new home. Donna Sullivan, the Land Use Administrative Assistant, read the PCC information into the record and noted that abutter notice is not required for a PCC.
Chair Steve Carten explained that a PCC is an informal, non‑binding conversation. He told the board and Mr. Lacerte that “anything discussed during this conversation is non‑binding on both the Board and the applicant.” Lacerte said his surveyor prepared a four‑lot plan based on an older lot‑size assumption of 40,000 square feet, but Land Use staff informed him that a 2024 zoning amendment raised the minimum lot size to 80,000 square feet, leaving at least one proposed lot non‑compliant.
Board members and Mr. Lacerte discussed options to pursue compliance. The Board suggested reducing the plan to three lots, adjusting lot lines where site conditions allow, or contacting abutters to acquire additional land. Board members identified technical constraints — wetlands setbacks, steep slopes, driveway access and frontage — that may prevent simply reshaping lots to meet the larger lot‑size requirement. The Board counseled Mr. Lacerte to work with his surveyor to verify building sites, setbacks and slope calculations before filing a revised plan.
The Board also clarified the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for variances. Chair Carten and other members said the ZBA, not the Planning Board, decides variance applications; a variance requires proof of a hardship and cannot be justified solely by financial loss. The timing of Mr. Lacerte’s property purchase relative to the 2024 zoning amendment was discussed as a potential hardship factor, but Board members emphasized they could not predict a ZBA outcome.
Mr. Lacerte said he would consult his surveyor about preparing a three‑lot plan or making other adjustments to reduce noncompliance, and he confirmed permitting and variance deadlines with Ms. Sullivan. The PCC generated guidance and next steps but no formal votes or approvals were taken.
