Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Townsend planning board continues Seba Road subdivision hearing after residents raise safety, boundary and notice concerns

Townsend Planning Board · July 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment citing road safety, alleged undisclosed boundary disputes and notice gaps, the Townsend Planning Board continued the public hearing for Belvedere Capital’s three‑lot Seaver Road extension at 0 Seba Road to July 27 and requested a statutory extension to Aug. 10.

The Townsend Planning Board on May 11 continued the public hearing on an application by Belvedere Capital LLC to create a three‑lot single‑family subdivision and extend Seaver Road by about 560 feet at 0 Seba Road, after multiple abutters raised safety, boundary‑dispute and notice concerns.

The hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. with Chair Andrew Shepherd reading a legal notice under MGL chapter 40A and chapter 41 describing the definitive plan and associated major stormwater permit. The applicant’s representative, David Plunkett, told the board the team had submitted responses to the peer‑review letter and said the applicant would cooperate if the board requested more time to review technical comments.

Neighbors’ objections formed the substantive focus of the session. Several residents said Seba Road is narrow, in poor condition and difficult for emergency vehicles to access; one resident said, “the road is a mess … we don’t have water on that road,” describing past difficulty for fire response. Other abutters questioned how a parcel classified in prior records as undevelopable became buildable and noted that similar plans had been rejected by the board in earlier years.

The board read five written submissions into the record, including a detailed letter from Jolene Siegman that alleged the application did not disclose an ongoing boundary dispute with neighboring properties and cited Massachusetts subdivision law and case law in arguing the board should not approve the plan while ownership remains contested. That letter asked the board for a complete title search and asserted the application lacked a required community‑impact element.

On the technical side, the town’s peer reviewer (Hoyle Tanner) flagged a set of plan and rules‑compliance items — including turnout dimensions for emergency vehicles, locations of soil test pits and details the reviewer recommended be added to roadway and stormwater plans — and recommended the board defer some decisions to departments such as fire, highway and board of health. Applicant engineer Wayne Bellick (Lane Design Collaborative) said the stormwater system and roadway design had been sized specifically for three houses and that a future town decision would determine whether the new road segment would remain private or be accepted as a public way.

Board members pressed the applicant on several procedural and practical points: whether lots would meet frontage standards if the road remains a private way; whether reserve or “spite” strips had been included; how drainage would be maintained long term; whether a bond should be required to guarantee road completion and maintenance; and whether the fire department’s concerns about apparatus turning radii were satisfied by the proposed cul‑de‑sac geometry. The applicant and reviewer said the design shows a cul‑de‑sac sized to accommodate emergency apparatus and that the stormwater system meets local standards, including treatment trains and pretreatment to meet total suspended solids and phosphorus targets.

Given the volume of public comment, recent peer‑review materials received shortly before the meeting, and unresolved legal questions raised in the written submissions, the board voted in roll call to continue the public hearing to July 27 and to request a statutory extension from the applicant to Aug. 10 so staff, the peer reviewer and town counsel can complete review. The motion passed on a roll call with members voting in the affirmative.

What’s next: The planning board will take the continued hearing up on July 27; town staff will post any additional peer‑review responses and supporting materials. The board asked staff to seek town counsel guidance on whether the board may act while a boundary dispute exists, and residents asked the board to require a full title search if the dispute is not disclosed in application materials.

The application: Belvedere Capital LLC submitted a definitive plan for a three‑lot single‑family subdivision and 560‑foot roadway extension for 0 Seba Road (parcel ID 23‑4‑0). Documents and the peer review are available at the planning office and by email to planning@townsendma.gov.