The central issue during the meeting arose from Green Vest LLC’s application to adjust lot lines by transferring small portions of their 39-acre parcel to two adjacent residential properties, which had pre-existing non-conformities. Represented by Jen Johnson, the company explained that these adjustments were necessary to resolve encroachments and would not involve any new construction. The larger parcel was under a conservation easement and would remain so indefinitely, as emphasized by Brian Kramer, a vice president of Green Vest.

However, Edward John Keski, a nearby property owner and a disabled veteran, objected strongly to the application, citing historical access rights that he claimed had been obstructed by Green Vest. Keski asserted that he and his brother had maintained a deeded right of way through the affected properties since 1908, which was now hindered by a gate installed by Green Vest. He presented a deed that reportedly documented this access, raising questions about the responsibilities of the involved parties regarding the easement. Keski’s concerns highlighted a tension between Green Vest’s conservation goals and the rights of neighboring property owners.

The meeting further delved into the complexities of easement rights and historical access. Keski described how an access road, essential for reaching his farm, had been blocked by dirt and debris. He expressed frustration over his perceived exclusion from discussions about a mitigation bank that included his property, which he only learned about through the application review process. Keski urged the board to delay approval of the application until these access issues were resolved, questioning the inclusion of his property in Green Vest’s plans without his knowledge.

During the discussion, a board member inquired about the legal implications of property conveyance on easement rights. The legal perspective presented suggested that easements remain valid regardless of property ownership changes, which reassured Keski that his historic access rights should still be recognized unless legally altered. Despite his objections, the board clarified that their role did not include enforcement of legal actions or grievances, as noted by a member identified as Mr. Wiener. He emphasized that the board’s jurisdiction was limited to the application at hand and that any disputes concerning easements would need to be resolved through other legal channels.

In response to these objections, Green Vest assured the board and Keski that their application did not propose changes to existing easements. They clarified that the gate was installed to prevent unauthorized ATV access and was not intended to restrict Keski’s access. The board’s engineer further confirmed that the application would not affect existing access rights or easement responsibilities. Despite these assurances, Keski remained skeptical, arguing that the proposed changes would obstruct his historical access to Hoffman Road.

Ultimately, the board focused on the technicalities of the application, concluding that the proposed lot line adjustments did not alter existing easements. With this understanding, they approved Green Vest’s request for waivers for curb and sidewalk improvements, as no new construction was planned. The board members voted in favor of the application without further discussion, emphasizing their review’s scope solely covered the application details presented.

The meeting concluded with the board addressing a memorialization concerning a previous application for Federal Business Centers. They confirmed that safety concerns, such as traffic and client uncertainty, had been noted in prior discussions and were satisfied with the information provided. Following this, the meeting transitioned to the public portion, where no additional comments were made, and the board extended holiday greetings before adjourning.