Grafton Planning Board Action – Points Have No Size

by Kieron Kramer
Most of the seventeen minute Grafton Planning Board meeting on Monday, July 18, was spent in an informal discussion of the proposed two lot subdivision by Marcel Forette of his approximately 40 acre parcel on Miller Way off of Blue Factory Road. Surveyor William Darling represented Forette and gave the Planning Board five copies of a sketch plan, Darling hadn’t finished the official survey yet, the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the completed application.
This forty acre parcel was described by Darling as “an extremely irregular parcel.” It is L-shaped with a 3.66 acre trapezoidal piece attached at one corner to the top corner of the short leg of the L by one point and parallel to the long leg of the L, a kind of already snipped, misshapen staple. Forette wants to keep about three acres of the L’s short leg for his dwelling. The long leg and the trapezoid together would be an approximately 37 acre undeveloped lot.
According to Darling the Forette property is currently deeded as one parcel with the L and the trapezoid being adjoined at one point of shared corners. It looks like two parcels already, and this is the problem. With the land inside the staple and the land abutting the short leg of the L and the trapezoid being owned by Manley and Straw (formerly owned by Barlow) and the short leg of the L being separated by this subdivision, the trapezoid now looks like a landlocked parcel. There is no access available between the proposed three acre homestead parcel, which has frontage, and the trapezoid because, as we all remember from geometry, a point has no width or length.
Planning Board Member Owen Grandjean said, “I know what you are trying to do, but we have to deal with the problem of the landlocked parcel.” To which Darling replied, “I know you are looking ahead to future purposes, but it is landlocked now and we are not asking to change.” Forette added that the landlocked parcel cannot be developed anyway because it is too steep. Earlier in the meeting, Planning Board Chairman Tom Withcuskey said that he considered this “basically a two lot subdivision.” If so, one lot is the 3 acre new homestead lot; the other is the 37 acre lot consisting of the long leg of the L and the, now no longer adjoining, trapezoid. So, is it a three lot subdivision with the trapezoid a landlocked third parcel or is it a two lot subdivision with the trapezoid legally part of the long leg of the L because of the language of the deed. Physically, the trapezoid is landlocked and has always been since this stretch of land, originally owned by Spiak, was cut up in this peculiar manner. Add to this the information that there were included in the deed what Darling called “reciprocal easements” at the point where the corners of the four parcels (two Forette and two Manley-Straw) meet at the top corner of the short leg of the L. He said the term used in the  original deed was a “double crossing.” Presumably, if these double crossings had width suitable for access, Darling would have said so. No wonder then that Withcuskey wanted to consult with the attorney for the Planning Board, Sal Ferlazzo, before continuing the application process and accepting the fee for the application.
Foreseeing this problem, Forette has already entered into negotiations with Manley and Straw to purchase a strip of the land inside the staple so that the trapezoid will be joined to the long leg of the L, which has road frontage. This however will require another subdivision, by the seller. So Forette’s subdivision might have to wait until this other subdivision and sale go through.
This may be a confusing and lengthy process. Grandjean said, “We don’t want to hold you up.” Obviously, though, there is plenty to sort out. Withcuskey said he will table Forette’s application for now and consult with Ferlazzo. If Ferlazzo thinks this subdivision can go forward then Withcuskey will contact Forette and arrange to accept the fee for the application and put it on the agenda for a future meeting. “There is too much up in the air now,” Withcuskey said.
Bly Subdivision
Last month’s meeting concluded with an informal discussion regarding a two lot minor subdivision on Mill Road applied for by Joe and Kathy Bly. They were represented by William Darling who described the subdivision as essentially a property line adjustment. The Blys want to take some acreage from their 9.5 acre lot to bring their adjoining .89 acre lot up to about three acres using the same tax map number. Their house is located on this lot with a septic system in place. What is left of the large lot will be 6.88 acres, will be kept as vacant land and will keep its tax map number. There were two lots, and there will still be two lots, just of different sizes. Darling came to last month’s meeting with a partial map of the property and was asked to bring a map of the entire premises, which he did at this meeting.  After a short review of the application and the full map, the Board voted unanimously, 4-0 with Scott Newell absent, to accept the application. A public hearing on the subdivision was scheduled for 6:45 pm before the next regular meeting of the Planning Board on August 15.