By Rob Sample
The Marlborough Planning Board examined an application for a lot-line change as well as a proposal for a four-lot subdivision at its Monday, December 18 meeting at Town Hall.
The Board also discussed two proposed changes to town regulations, one of which would govern the location of cannabis establishments and the other concerning the town’s ridgeline rules and project-completion deadlines.
The lot-line revision application was filed by Sharon Thomas of 287 Lattintown Road in Marlboro, who removed a mobile home and is building a single-family home on the site. Hers is Lot 1 in the proposal. Andrew Polizzi, of 24 Rodeo Drive in Marlboro, owns the adjacent Lot 2.
Polizzi aims to transfer .27 acres to Thomas, enhancing the size of Thomas’s front yard. While the move might appear simple at first glance, the change to the lot line raises a variety of issues, said Pat Hines, principal of MHE Engineering – the town’s engineering consultant.
“The house under construction does not meet rear-yard setback requirements,” Hines noted. “The well depicted on Lot One [where Thomas’s house is being built] also does not appear to meet the required separation distances to property lines.” Town regulations call for such wells to be 15 feet from property lines, Hines explained.
Board member Cindy Lanzetta asked whether the home under construction is in the same location as a mobile home listed as on Lot 1; Thomas replied that it occupies the footprint. That mobile home was removed before construction began. Thomas also pointed out that she obtained a building permit prior to beginning the project.
“The mobile home was put there in 1999 – and I believe there was another mobile home there before that time,” Thomas said.
Addressing Polizzi, Hines noted that a mobile home on Lot 2 also does not meet setback requirements – specifically, the distance from the mobile home’s front porch to the front property line on Lattintown Road. That trailer, which has been on the site since 1981, was given a waiver on that requirement by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
However, changing the lot line nullifies that and requires Polizzi to apply for another waiver. Hines also said the single map filed with the application was insufficient, and Thomas should file “existing” and “proposed” maps for each lot. Once filed, the Planning Board will refer the matter to the ZBA.
In the second proposal, owner James Lyons aims to subdivide a six-acre lot at 144 Old Indian Road into four lots of 1.3 acres each. Lot 1 will have a driveway connecting it to Old Indian Road; lots 2, 3 and 4 will be on a proposed private lane.
The proposed private road does not meet the town’s roadway-width requirements, which call for a width of 24 feet and shoulders of three feet. The applicant’s engineering plan shows 18 feet. In addition, the cul-de-sac at its end would need to be enlarged from the 50-foot diameter in the engineering proposal to a required 80-foot diameter.
The Planning Board voted to refer the matter to the Marlborough Town Board, which can waive or modify these specifications in consultation with the town’s Highway Department.
The two proposed new regulations will go before public hearings, scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, January 8, 2024. The proposed cannabis regulation would prohibit such establishments from setting up shop from within 500 feet of any school, day care center or nursery school, drug or alcohol rehab facility, correctional facilities, places of worship, or another cannabis facility.
Board members indicated a desire to include government buildings in that list. “I would like it to have specific buildings named,” said member James Garofalo. Such buildings might include police and fire stations, he noted.
When a law legalizing recreational cannabis sales passed in New York several years ago, local municipalities were given the choice of whether to allow such businesses. Some towns and cities opted out; Marlborough did not. Any town regulations governing cannabis establishments must still go before the state for approval.
The proposed change to the ridgeline regulation would remove a 50-foot limit for building from the actual ridgeline. Board members instead favored reducing that requirement, to 35 or 40 feet, instead of eliminating it. Doing so would be in keeping with conservation requirements outlined in the town’s Comprehensive Master Plan, which it adopted in 2002.
The same regulation also includes a proposed change to the project-completion deadline. The change would give applicants four years, instead of the current two, to finish. It would also allow the Planning Board to grant three one-year extension periods. That limit is now two.
Several board members thought the rule could be interpreted too broadly, with some projects lasting more than a decade. But the Planning Board would retain discretion on any extensions, noted Town Attorney Meghan Clemente. “They still have to come before this board for a time extension,” Clemente said.