Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Subdivision Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DRB requests survey and permit details in initial review of Double C Corporation three‑lot subdivision

Planning Commission and Development Review Board · January 14, 2025
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

At an initial Development Review Board review Jan. 14, Lou Cadwell and Greg Chase described plans to subdivide a 63‑acre Chapel Hill Road parcel into three lots; the DRB asked for additional survey detail for Lot 3, a driveway permit application for Lot 1, and depiction of proposed house site, well and driveway.

The Development Review Board conducted an initial review of a proposed three‑lot subdivision for a 63‑acre parcel off Chapel Hill Road on Jan. 14.

Owner Louis (Lou) Cadwell and partner Greg Chase told the board they bought the property (63 acres) as an investment and now propose dividing it into three lots: Lot 1 (3.37 acres), Lot 2 (about 29.8 acres, including roughly 9.5 acres in the neighboring town of Norwich), and Lot 3 (approximately 30 acres). The property has been used for logging, and Cadwell described Lots 2 and 3 as 'wood lots.' The survey submitted shows a septic site on Lot 1, which indicates anticipated residential development for that lot; the applicants said they already have a buyer for Lot 2.

Board members asked the applicants to update the Lot 3 boundary detail on the survey so it matches the level shown for Lots 1 and 2. The board also requested that the applicants apply to the Selectboard for a driveway permit for Lot 1 and, on the survey, show the proposed house site, well location and driveway in addition to the existing septic site. The minutes note that additional subdivision proceedings would be required if Lots 2 or 3 were later proposed for residential use rather than forestry.

No formal vote or approval occurred at this initial review; the board's requests reflect information and permitting steps the applicants must address before the subdivision can advance.