Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weathersfield board closes hearing on two‑lot subdivision at Mountain View Drive
Summary
The Development Review Board closed the public hearing on Robert Vizi’s application to subdivide a 1986 lot into two single‑family parcels after reviewing updated plats, wetland delineation, and access documentation. The board will consider final plat approval at a subsequent meeting.
The Weathersfield Development Review Board closed the public hearing on May 26 for Application 25.1028.Viz, which seeks final plat review to divide a 1986 four‑lot parcel into two single‑family residential lots at Mountain View Drive.
Applicant Robert Vizi told the board he has owned the property since 1990 and is proposing a two‑lot subdivision consistent with the pre‑1994 grandfathering clause in the town zoning bylaws. Land Use Administrator Ryan Gumbart summarized the application materials and confirmed an updated final plat and wetland map were submitted and will supersede earlier sheets in the record; the board accepted a multi‑document exhibit list including a 35‑page stormwater analysis and revised plans.
Agent Kris Jurentkuff told the board that the Highway Superintendent noted the proposed driveway is “not on the Town of Weathersfield right‑of‑way,” and explained that historic records and the 1986 plat show Mountain View Extension as the recorded 50‑foot right‑of‑way serving the original four lots. Jurentkuff said ownership of the land under the road is unclear but the easement over Lot 1 serves Lot 2 for both access and utilities.
Jurentkuff also reported a slope analysis found no areas over 20% on the proposed upper lot and that the applicants apportioned impervious area budgets to avoid triggering a state stormwater permit (10,200 sq ft for Lot 1; 11,500 sq ft for Lot 2). Gumbart said the project is not in jurisdictional proximity to state‑mapped deer wintering areas or other locally mapped natural areas that would change permitting requirements.
Board member Andrea Murray raised a question about potential upcoming changes to state wetland regulations; the board concluded the submitted plans comply with current buffers and would remain compliant under the likely regulatory adjustments discussed. After discussion, Beth Hunton moved to close the hearing; Andrea Murray seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The board did not make a final plat decision on May 26 and may take final action when the file is calendared for approval.
