Meeting on Monday, April 1, the Marlborough Planning Board approved an application by Peter and Frances Fremgen for a lot-line resolution on their property on Clark’s Lane in Milton.

The lot-line revision corrects an error in the line recorded in a 1979 subdivision application, in which the existing lot line passed through a garage. The Fremgens applied for the revision late in 2023 and it was first aired in January. After revising their map to show the location of sewer system, the application earned unanimous approval from the Planning Board.

The next item on the agenda – a subdivision proposal at 397-407 Willow Tree Road in Milton – was more complex and elicited a lengthy exchange among members of the board, the town attorney, the town’s consulting engineer, and Carmen Messina, the application’s project engineer. In sum, a variety of issues remained before the Board could okay the proposal – which was submitted in the name of LynnDavid Properties.

First off, Board Member James Garofalo noted that the dimensions shown on the proposal’s map did not match those on its bulk tables – a zoning term for regulations for buildings on a parcel of land. “In the future the dimensions on a bulk table need to be submitted,” he said.

As part of that, Member Cindy Lanzetta noted a discrepancy in the size of one of the three new lots proposed, with it showing as 4.57 acres on the map and 3.15 on the bulk table. “We neglected to change that when we submitted our maps to the Zoning Board of Appeals,” noted Messina.

Lanzetta further noted that the Board is seeing more frequent subdivision applications of this type, where parcels with multiple dwellings in rural/agricultural zones are now being sold because they are no longer used for farming or as summer properties. Subdividing them becomes problematic because it can be difficult to assign those existing dwellings to separate one-acre lots.

“I’m under the impression, though, that when you subdivide you lose any grandfathered protection” such a parcel might have before being divided, said Pat Hines of MHE Engineering, the town’s consulting engineer. “But you can go to the ZBA to get relief from that part of the code.”

Garofalo also noted that the bulk tables for the proposed subdivision were also missing several dimensional numbers for the side yards, a factor Messina said he would correct.

The largest issue came with respect to how the Board – and Messina – interpreted the owner’s interest in the property that extends to the center line of adjacent roads. The two in this instance would be Willow Tree and Mulberry Lanes.

“Properties are deeded to the center of the road,” Messina noted, referring to the regulation. “But [while] the town has the right to use it, the owner retains ownership of the property to the center line.”

Messina said this would be critical in determining the town’s access to any additional road frontage, should the town ever seek to widen a road. He also suggested that monetary compensation for any land lost in this regard might be appropriate – as has been done in situations involving properties on state highways.

Hines took issue with that interpretation. “Typically, it [the affected land] is deeded to the town,” he said.

“By bringing your application you are subjecting yourself to all conditions – not just the state’s but the town’s – to get subdivision approval,” said Gerard Comatos, the town’s consulting attorney. The compensation in such a situation, he added, would be the town’s approval of the application.

“If I owned a piece of property like that [part of a roadway] I might also be concerned from a legal perspective,” noted Garofalo. The property owner could be held liable for any injury that took place on that parcel of property, he clarified.

Messina also asked whether it would be possible to have a preliminary vote that night on whether the Board felt the subdivision application might ultimately earn its approval. Board Chairman Chris Brand said the Planning Board does not ever vote in a preliminary manner.

“So, you are saying that if you don’t give us that 25 feet [of roadway] you won’t approve this application,” said Messina. Brand countered that the Planning Board instead outlines what it needs for final approval in a give-and-take process that can span multiple appearances.

While one of the dwellings in question came up short, measuring just 20.8 feet from the adjacent road’s center line, Hines pointed out that this would be an issue that could be resolved by the ZBA.

On another question, Messina noted that the subtraction of land for road frontage would cause one parcel to slip below the one-acre lot size requirement. Hines suggested he revise the lot line between it and what remained of “Lot 1” - the original parcel - which was sufficiently large to make up the difference.

Prior to adjourning, the Planning Board also suggested having a site visit to the parcel. This visit will be arranged at a later date.