The focal point of the meeting was a public hearing on the variance petition related to parcels with inadequate road frontage on Maple Street, which were previously part of a larger lot. Bron Meadow LLC, represented by Josh Lavine of Green Law, sought to utilize the limited frontage on Maple Street for driveways to construct two single-family homes. Lavine argued that the variance was necessary due to the impracticality of building on the Chestnut Street side, which was hindered by wetland conditions and low topography. He emphasized that the variance would not disrupt the zoning bylaws’ intents, as the proposed homes would be set back to prevent overcrowding.

Several council members and residents expressed strong concerns over the safety implications of adding driveways on a busy street already congested during peak hours. One council member highlighted the potential hazards of three closely situated driveways on Maple Street, stressing the risks during school hours when traffic is at its peak. Residents echoed these sentiments, with some recalling the property’s history as a gladiola field and previous unsuccessful attempts to develop it due to similar access issues.

The proposed variance involved a significant deviation from the town’s zoning requirements, with requests for 60% and 80% variances from standard frontage norms. The council was faced with balancing these substantial requests against the potential risks and community impact. A council member emphasized the seriousness of granting such variances, warning against setting a precedent that could lead to future zoning challenges.

Public input was a componet of the meeting, with several residents voicing their positions. Kathy Hood, a long-time area resident, provided historical context about the land, detailing past development attempts that were thwarted by the land’s conditions. Another resident, Dina Hoo, argued against the variance on the grounds that it violated town bylaws requiring 100 feet of road frontage for new lots. She stressed the importance of adhering to these laws to maintain the integrity of the town’s development plans.

In response to the feedback and ongoing deliberations, the applicants reconsidered their proposal, opting to pursue a single variance instead of two. This decision prompted discussions about procedural adjustments, including the submission of a new application and re-advertising the revised proposal to ensure transparency and public awareness.

The council acknowledged the necessity of informing the community about the modified plans and the associated safety considerations. An Approval Not Required (ANR) plan was discussed as a procedural step needed to adjust lot lines, with a 21-day window for the planning board to act on the proposal.

The hearing was ultimately continued to a later date, proposed for August 11th, to allow the applicants adequate time to submit an amended plan focusing on a single driveway. The council emphasized the importance of public input in the decision-making process, reassuring residents that updated materials would be made accessible for review and feedback.