Planning board reviews preliminary boundary adjustments for Chain of Ponds Community Forest (Case 2604)

Seth Brunell, a land surveyor with HEB Engineers, presented a preliminary boundary-line adjustment for Case 2604 on July 7, describing two small triangular parcels identified during surveying of the roughly 625-acre Chain of Ponds Community Forest near Madison Shores.

Brunell told the Madison Planning Board the northern triangle on the Belcher property is roughly one‑tenth of an acre and the southern triangle on the Alvarez Family Trust parcel is only a few hundred square feet (about 0.015 acres). He said the land-trust conveyance would leave the conserved acreage for the parcel nearly unchanged and the adjustments represent the "minimum necessary to remove the encroachment." The town chair emphasized this was a preliminary, nonbinding review and that any formal decision would occur at a later meeting.

Why it matters: The adjustments resolve instances where private improvements — a garage corner, a lean‑to and a shed — overlap conservation boundaries. The board and residents stressed accurate records and notice are essential before deeds or easements are recorded, because changes affect title and long‑term use of conserved land.

Board members asked for per‑lot detail, setbacks and how zoning/permitting intersects with the boundary work. Brunell said zoning questions (setbacks, variances) are a separate process; his firm’s work was to map the boundary and recommend the smallest dedications or deeds needed to cure encroachments. On the Alvarez Trust parcel he described a shed and minor attachments that were “not much” over the line; on the Belcher/Dino lot he noted a garage corner and a stretch of cleared slope and a driveway edge that crossed the surveyed line.

Several abutters spoke. Andy Macanowski of 148 Madison Shores Boulevard said he was not on the project mailing list and raised a specific concern about a shared well: "We have an 8‑inch well that literally is cut in half by the property line," he said, urging the board and applicant to provide full easement language and maps. Macanowski also questioned historic deed accuracy and suggested the community could have a claim for possession by adverse use if long-standing use of a well area is not resolved. Brunell and the board acknowledged that an easement or deed approach had been discussed as a practical title remedy and said attorneys and the land-trust team had reviewed possible fixes.

The board identified three abutters who were omitted from the applicant’s mailing list. The applicant acknowledged the omission and agreed to recheck records, correct the abutter list, and re‑notice the missing parties. The board reiterated that the matter would return for a formal review — likely a routine completion of paperwork once correct notices and deeds/easement drafts are provided — and that no vote on the boundary adjustments would be taken at the July 7 preliminary review.

Next steps: The applicant will correct the abutter list and provide full easement or deed language and maps for review; the board expects the application to return for a full review at the next meeting (the chair said August 5 was the expected meeting date).