Christopher Blondin seeks preliminary approval for 24‑lot East Road subdivision in Milton

Chair Bruce Jenkins opened a preliminary plan review on June 25 for a proposed 24‑lot subdivision at 0 East Road. Applicant Christopher Blondin presented plans showing 21 new dwelling units, a new road accessed from Railroad Street, and connections to municipal water and sewer on a 55.91‑acre parcel in the Old Towne Residential (R1) zoning district and the Town Core Planning Area.

The Development Review Board advised the applicant to provide a Permit Navigator Summary or Project Review Sheet, address Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comments, and confirm that each lot will contain a single‑family dwelling and the total number of dwelling units proposed. The board flagged several site‑specific issues requiring clarification, including whether Lot 31 can be created without the required frontage and whether the proposed road right‑of‑way affects the lot size of 142 Railroad Street. The board asked the applicant to provide distances from 140 and 142 Railroad Street to the proposed roadway to verify front‑setback conformance and to clarify driveway access for 142 Railroad Street.

On technical and design matters the board advised that the new road will require a highway access permit from Public Works and an associated inspection, that road grades and paving must meet Public Works specifications (including section 3504.A(14) references in the application materials), and that driveway design conform to section 3002 and Public Works standards. The board also requested further details and determinations on grading, erosion control and stormwater management (including any grading or fill outside the limits of section 3007.E), surface‑water protections per section 3011, and confirmation of state and local water and sewer allocations and connection approvals. The applicant was told to provide state stormwater permitting documentation before any zoning permits are issued.

The board further asked the applicant to show compliance or to provide justification for connectivity and access (section 3405.A(6)), to consider whether a secondary access is required, and to provide detailed road design information on final plans (section 3405). The board also raised questions about sidewalks (the board advised including sidewalks on both sides of the new road), street trees, street lighting, and whether the proposed open space meets the common recreation area requirement in section 3405.J. The application was asked to demonstrate conformance with character and settlement pattern requirements (section 3406), renewable‑energy and energy‑conservation standards (section 3407), and to provide details on how the subdivision would avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to significant natural resources and preserve soils consistent with section 3409.

The board reminded the applicant that the project must be built and maintained as approved and that omission or misstatement of material facts may be grounds for revocation of any approval. If approved, the applicant will have six months to file a complete final subdivision plan under section 4406.G. After questions and guidance the board closed the hearing at 6:55 p.m. following a motion from board member Mary Callahan, seconded by Bill McSweeney, which passed unanimously. The DRB noted that if it closes the hearing it must issue a decision within 45 days.

Next steps: the applicant is expected to submit revised plans and permit documentation addressing the list of items raised by the board; the DRB may schedule a site visit before final action.