The applicant for the Markart Drive subdivision, Matthew Pike, alongside his attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, presented a plan for either nine or eight lots, with a focus on meeting the roadway layout and stormwater management standards. Silverstein sought a waiver related to the road layout, arguing that the prohibition of a perimeter road was unnecessary due to the distance of the nearest house and the minimal impact on noise and glare. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the board’s past decisions regarding similar waivers.

Board members discussed the unique aspects of the proposal, stressing the need to consider the specifics of the current subdivision rather than relying solely on precedent. The uniqueness of each subdivision was a recurring theme, emphasizing the board’s approach to assessing each case on its individual merits.

Safety concerns dominated the discussions, with the adequacy of the road’s radius and visibility at intersections coming under scrutiny. An existing tree was identified as a potential hazard, and the termination of the sidewalk and issues with screening were debated. A member pointed out that denying the waiver for the road’s layout radius could render the land unbuildable, while another suggested combining lots to reduce density and increase space between homes.

Public comments echoed the safety concerns, with residents highlighting the dangers of short sight distances, high traffic speeds, and the potential increase in accidents if the subdivision proceeded. Issues of stormwater runoff and the impact on wildlife habitat were also raised, as well as the significance of the area’s history and environment. A real estate company owner addressed the property’s past, including failed attempts to have the town or conservation groups purchase it, asserting the property owner’s development rights.

One resident, identified as David LMA, pointed out the existing traffic issues on Drift Road, discussing ongoing conversations about building a bridge to improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Another resident, Delian, criticized the engineer’s depiction of the road, emphasizing the hidden exits from the proposed development and the prevalent speeding.

As the meeting progressed, board members questioned the proposed waivers for the subdivision, with one stating the consideration of two waivers due to a recent adjustment in the road’s position. There was also an openness among some members to approve a reduced number of lots.

Ultimately, the board voted to close the public hearing and subsequently voted against the waivers necessary for the subdivision.