MARSHFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

Approved Minutes of September 7, 2006

Board Members present: James Arisman, Paul Brierre, Tom Daley, and designated alternate Jean Matthew. Also attending: Zoning Administrator Bob Light, Trevor Tait, Peter Surridge, and Virginia Surridge.

At 7:10 pm James moved to approve the minutes of August 3, 2006 as drafted. Seconded by Paul, all in favor.

At 7:15 the Board opened Final Plan hearing on the Subdivision application of Trevor Tait. He wishes to convey a small strip of land, totaling about one half acre, from a large piece he owns jointly with Ellen Cooke on Ennis Hill Road to a smaller adjacent lot now owned by Ellen. Because no new lots are to be created, the Board is treating this proposal as a boundary adjustment. Upon request, they have waived the requirement that he submit a survey for the entire 98 acre source parcel, because this same land has already been the subject of a subdivision granted in 2005. Trevor has submitted a completed survey showing only the portion of the property from which the small conveyance is to be made. After explaining the plan, and the reasons for the conveyance, the Board closed the hearing at 7:20 pm.

The Board then asked the Surridges if there was something they wished to discuss with the DRB. They replied that they were attending in response to a notice they had received, as adjoining landowners, of a subdivision hearing for Trevor Tait, but had not realized that that was the matter the Board was discussing when they arrived. At Tom’s request, Bob went after Trevor as he was leaving the building to ask him to return. Without objection, the Board reopened the hearing to give Trevor an opportunity to explain his proposal to the Surridges. Seeing that the plan did not alter any boundaries that affect their own property, the Surridges indicated that they had no objection to Trevor’s application. The Board closed the hearing at 7:30 pm.

Bob then asked the Board for their input on a problem he has encountered with a Zoning Permit application for a new residence on Pike Road. He went up to look at the property, and discovered that the driveway could not be accessed when traveling up to the property from Route 2. To drive into the property, it was necessary to proceed further up Pike Road, turn around, and come down the road again to make the turn. Bob is concerned that this presents a dangerous situation should emergency vehicles need to reach the site, but feels he has limited authority to require changes. He has requested that the applicants provide certification from a qualified engineer regarding the slopes on the site, and the documentation he received indicates that that no part of the use area lies on a slope that exceeds the15% threshold provided in the Zoning Regulations. Accordingly, he cannot refer the applicants to the DRB for Conditional Use review, but he wonders whether there is any other aspect of the zoning rules that could require an upgrade to make the driveway safer.

            The Board was not able to identify any other means by which Bob could refer the matter for further zoning review. They asked if the Selectboard had the power to compel a change, if it could be demonstrated that this particular configuration presented a safety hazard. Bob and Jean felt that, once a curb cut has been granted, the Select Board could not go back and require changes to a driveway that they have, essentially, already approved. The only other suggestion was to get the Town’s Fire Chief to inspect the situation and, if he determined it to present a safety hazard, to prepare a letter to that effect for the benefit of the landowner and, possibly, any potential mortgagers or insurers.

Bob also asked the Board for their current view of whether a person who owns a single lot that is bisected by a public road could convey the portion on one side of the road or the other without first obtaining a Subdivision permit. He had earlier provided each member with copies of a letter from Town Attorney Paul Gillies which advised that the Town should not require subdivision permits in such cases. He also shared a letter he had received from Michael Caccavo, providing an excerpt from the state’s Environmental Protection Rules, indicating that a subdivision of land is “deemed to have taken place” when a lot is divided by a municipal right-of-way.

            The Board members present had reviewed these submissions, and looked at the case law cited in Paul’s letter. They felt unanimously that the materials offered did not make a compelling case that the town should not require subdivision permits in such cases — although they might compel a permit to be granted once applied for in certain circumstances. Nor did they think that the established standards of the state’s Environmental Protection Rules in any way pre-empted the Town’s own zoning regulations in this regard. Accordingly, the view of the DRB at this time remains that any conveyance of a portion of any single deeded lot requires Subdivision Approval from the town.

At 8:15 pm the Board entered deliberative session to discuss the Tait application.

At 8:30 pm James moved to adjourn the DRB meeting. Seconded by Paul, all in favor.

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Tom Daley