Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Pentahem topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Pentahem subdivision after questions on private road access and easement
Summary
The Lumberland Planning Board tabled consideration of a four-lot subdivision after members pressed the applicant for written permission or an easement to upgrade a private road and asked for a cost estimate and confirmation of acreage; a public hearing was set pending documentation for May 11.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Pentahem topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lumberland Planning Board on an information hearing discussed a proposed subdivision of a 9-acre parcel into four residential lots that would rely on upgrading a private road. The applicant described plans to pave about 2,675 feet of road to a 21-foot width “to stabilize the surface” and address washouts, but did not present written easement documentation from the recorded owner.
Chair (speaker 1) told the board the January minutes had lacked a roll call and then turned to the Pentahem referral, reading the application identifier and calling up the applicant. The applicant (speaker 3) said the parcel would be subdivided into four new lots and that “by paving it, it will stabilize the surface.” Board members asked whether the road is a tax parcel and whether written permission exists from the owner of that parcel; an applicant representative (speaker 5) said they had visited the owner “twice” but did not provide a written authorization.
Staff (speaker 4) recommended that the applicant provide a cost estimate for the proposed growth improvement and noted corrections needed on engineering details. Board members and staff reiterated that, while the current road is compliant for existing housing, adding new homes would require the road to meet town specifications and clarified that an agreement addressing maintenance and permission to do work would be necessary before approval.
Because the applicant did not supply documentation of permission or an easement and because several technical corrections and a cost estimate remain outstanding, the board voted to table consideration and directed staff to arrange a public hearing for May 11 once the materials are complete. The motion to table was made by a board member (speaker 6) and seconded (speaker 3); the full recorded tally was not specified in the transcript.

