Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jericho DRB reviews two‑lot subdivision at 2 Railroad Circle, with one lot proposed for affordable housing
Summary
At a sketch review, the Jericho Development Review Board heard a two‑lot subdivision proposal for a town‑owned parcel at 2 Railroad Circle that would reserve one lot for affordable housing; board members asked the applicant to resolve frontage and road discontinuance with the select board and to return with refined plans.
Chair called the meeting to order and introduced two new business items, including a sketch plan for a two‑lot subdivision at 2 Railroad Circle proposed with the Jericho Community Development Corporation as applicant. Phil Glenn, a liaison with Liberty Revert Civil Associates, told the board the roughly 2‑acre parcel has an agreed wetland delineation and 50‑foot buffers; he said, “we are expecting no need for a wetland permit because we're not proposing anything in it.” Glenn said preliminary test pits support two three‑bedroom mound wastewater systems and that one of the new lots is being held for Habitat for Humanity or another affordable‑housing buyer.
The request highlighted a zoning technicality: the existing parcel’s frontage along Railroad Circle exceeds the Village Corners frontage standard (staff cited a frontage range of 15–75 feet, and the applicant noted an existing condition of roughly 117 feet). Glenn proposed asking the select board to discontinue a short segment of Railroad Circle so the resulting frontage would be closer to 35 feet and conform to the frontage standard. Staff advised that a discontinuance would be a select board decision and that the DRB’s review at this stage is advisory; fire, highway and other advisory committees will also review the design when the application advances from sketch to formal hearing.
Neighbors asked about conditions tied to a sale to Habitat for Humanity and about whether the town planned to recover ARPA funds used to buy the property. “Do you know what contingency the town is able to place on the property when offering the property to Habitat?” asked Jason Garberino, a nearby resident. Peter Booth, a member of the select board who spoke during the meeting, said the select board would address sale terms and the town’s intent to recoup funds.
Board members said the concept appears workable but asked the applicant to resolve road/discontinuance issues with the select board, refine frontage and site details (turnaround, setbacks, septic replacement areas) and return with a complete formal application. Because this was a sketch plan review, the DRB’s comments were advisory and the hearing would be continued or moved to a formal review only once required information and any select board decisions were in place.
Next steps: the applicant will consult with the select board on road discontinuance, pursue advisory reviews (fire, highway, conservation, energy) as needed, and return to the DRB with updated plans. No formal DRB vote on the subdivision is recorded in the transcript.
