Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks to split 33.3-acre Braintree parcel; board weighs road-frontage waiver
Summary
An owner asked the Braintree Development Review Board to approve Application ZP25-15 to divide a 33.3-acre parcel at 758 Bent Hill Road into 13.3- and 20-acre lots; the board focused on a rural-1 district rule requiring 300 feet of road frontage and discussed whether waiver criteria are met. No vote was taken.
The Braintree Development Review Board on Aug. 28 considered Application ZP25-15, a request to subdivide a 33.3-acre parcel at 758 Bent Hill Road (Parcel 07-010) into lots of roughly 13.3 acres and 20 acres. Chair Bob Moyer read the public notice and opened the floor for the applicants to present their rationale.
The presenter said the property was purchased in 1994, that a 1,000-gallon septic previously existed on the site, and that the owners are proposing subdivision in part to avoid continued rental management and to provide a modest, potentially more affordable housing option. "Another thing that's very lacking around here is, affordable housing," the presenter said, framing the subdivision as a way to create a small starter lot option while preserving the parcel's character.
Board members identified the primary regulatory concern as road frontage. In the town's rural-1 zoning district, lots are required to have 300 feet of road frontage; members said the proposed division would leave one lot with about 200 feet and the other with roughly 150 feet. A board member explained that the bylaws allow a waiver of frontage up to a 50% reduction only when specific criteria are met.
Members also asked about driveway location and emergency access; a board member acting in the fire-role said a fire truck could reach the site. The board discussed waiver standards found on "page 81" and "page 82" of the bylaws (waiver standards and criteria), and noted the planning commission and the regional planner (2 Rivers) had flagged frontage clarity as a potential issue for town regulations.
No formal vote or permit decision was recorded. Chair Moyer proposed closing testimony and said the board could either decide later the same evening if they felt they had sufficient information or continue the matter to a future meeting; the hearing was adjourned without a final decision.
Next steps: the board said it would notify the zoning administrator of its decision or any conditions after deliberations, and applicants were told they might receive a notice of decision from the zoning office.
