Townsend board continues hearing on proposed three-lot Seba Road subdivision after technical, legal and abutter concerns

The Townsend Planning Board continued a public hearing on a definitive plan and major stormwater permit for 0 Seba Road, a proposed three-lot single‑family subdivision that would extend the roadway roughly 560 feet.

Chair Andrew Shepherd opened the continued hearing and read the legal notice describing a “definitive plan … proposed 3 lot single family residential subdivision and roadway extension of 560 feet located at 0 Seba Road, Townsend, Assessor's map 23 Block 4 Lot 0.” The board then accepted a peer review and town-department comments for consideration.

David, the peer reviewer who prepared the most recent report, told the board that “the majority of the comments in there refer to waivers” and that most technical issues have been addressed but several waiver requests and a few items should be included in any order of conditions. He said some matters — such as the need for soil testing within the roadway — are often left to the highway department’s discretion.

The applicant’s representative, Wayne, defended the design and the stormwater system, saying it is “designed in accordance with the local stormwater model” and that the scope reflects current regulations. He also described proposed temporary easements intended to protect abutters’ access, and said the applicant would work with neighbors on access arrangements.

Abutters argued the application contains omissions and potential bylaw violations. Mike Seikman, identifying himself as a Seaver Road resident, urged the board to consider Townsend's subdivision bylaw language that says errors, misrepresentations or omissions are grounds for denial, saying concerned neighbors had raised the driveway-access issue months earlier and that the unresolved easement could allow a non‑subdivision lot to obtain frontage by default.

Attorney Stephanie Mello, representing owner Belvedere Capital, said her clients acquired the property at foreclosure and are not the prior developer discussed in neighborhood letters: “We—'re not the kind of people that are described in this letter,” she said, urging the board to evaluate the current owner separately.

Board members pressed legal and procedural questions: whether waivers granted for a 2021 preliminary plan are binding for this definitive plan; the implications if the road remains private versus being accepted as a public way; and whether the planning board can safely act without town-counsel guidance. One member noted previous waivers had allowed narrower rights-of-way and 18-foot travel lanes under conditions tied to demonstrated turning clearance for fire apparatus.

Because multiple technical clarifications and legal questions remained — and after hearing public comment and applicant replies — Chair Shepherd moved to continue the hearing to August 10 to permit follow-up with the highway department and town counsel. The motion passed. The board asked staff to collect outstanding department comments and any further peer-review edits before the next session.