Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates 16-foot access strip versus 50-foot frontage and whether a conservation easement could work
Summary
Members and residents debated whether increasing the access to a 50-foot frontage or using a conservation easement would better serve emergency access and legal definitions of public use; presenters said Summit Drive frontage belonged to privately sold portion of the lot and that purchase/easement negotiations are ongoing.
During deliberations, board members considered alternatives to the proposed 16-foot access path, including extending frontage to 50 feet or securing a town-held conservation easement.
One board member asked, "why not extend it to the full 50 feet and have it come up?" arguing a wider frontage could avoid the dimensional variance. Presenters said Summit Drive frontage was part of the parcel planned for private sale and the owners wanted to retain certain development or business value, which shaped negotiations and the narrower 16-foot access. Several board members said a conservation easement could be preferable because it can preserve public access without creating a new nonconforming lot that fails variance criteria.
The board's legal discussion centered on whether trails count as "public use" under the RA district and whether granting the variance would meet the hardship and spirit-of-the-ordinance tests. Those concerns contributed to the eventual denial and the board's advice that landowners and conservation advocates explore easements or other plan revisions.
