Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Anr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board seeks clearer paper trail for ANR on Tehaddowen Road; applicant says contract requires quick filing
Summary
At a virtual Littleton Planning Board meeting, members pressed the applicant to show a separate ANR documenting how a 35-foot strip was carved from Lot 168 before it is conveyed and combined with Lot 48 (proposed 4B). The applicant, citing legal advice and a purchase-and-sale agreement, said the combined filing was the only viable path and the board tabled the matter to Aug. 6.
The Littleton Planning Board reviewed an Approval-Not-Required (ANR) filing for a 35-foot parcel off Tehaddowen Road and asked the applicant to provide clearer documentation of how the strip is being created and transferred.
Planning board member Mark Montanari said the town’s customary two-step approach — first showing the 35-foot strip broken off as a separate ANR and then conveying it so it can be combined with Lot 48 (proposed Lot 4B) — was being skipped. "There has to be an ANR that breaks it off from 168," Montanari said, arguing a separate ANR creates a paper trail showing how the frontage was reduced from the original parcel.
The applicant, introduced during the meeting as Mark Gallagher, responded that the parcel was under a purchase-and-sale agreement and that legal counsel and the engineer advised this combined presentation as the only legally permissible path prior to closing. "Because it's under agreement, we cannot merge it with the land that we own from 146," Gallagher said, adding the parties expect to close on Parcel A the following Monday or Tuesday.
Other board members echoed Montanari’s concern about public records and clarity. A board member (Daryl) said he wanted proof the 35-foot strip had been legally defined before it was combined and another member suggested tabling the item to allow the applicant and the town’s legal counsel to align on the correct procedural steps.
The board chair summarized a request that the applicant submit two drawings before the next hearing: (1) a drawing showing the 35-foot parcel detached from Lot 168, and (2) a drawing showing the 35-foot parcel combined into Lot 4B. The board agreed to table the ANR for consideration at the August 6 meeting in the Multi Purpose Room 1 at the senior center to allow that work and legal coordination.
The meeting record reflects the dispute was procedural (how the ANR is presented for the land-records history) rather than substantive objections to the resulting lot’s dimensions. The board did not adopt a final disposition of the ANR at the session and expects the applicant to return with revised/clarifying plans and confirmation from town legal staff.
