Albert Arking is afraid of what might happen to his neighborhood if a resubdivision is approved.
“You can call it the domino effect, or the slippery slope,” Arking said.
The Planning Board was considering a pre-preliminary plan for a resubdivision in the Willerburn Acres neighborhood, along Gainsborough Road east of Seven Locks Road.
The property owner wants to cut their lot in half and build another house on it. Neighbors are afraid that if this is allowed to go forward, it will open the door to more resubdivisions in the neighborhood and dramatically change the character of their neighborhood.
Planning board staff agreed. “This proposed resubdivision does not meet criteria,” said Dolores Kinney of Park and Planning.
The proposal which was brought forward involved splitting the lot front and back and creating a pipestem lot. “We only have one other in this neighborhood,” Kinney said.
Defining the neighborhood is key to most resubdivisions, and this one was no different. Since a resubdivision must be compatible (see sidebar), using a different definition of “neighborhood” can give it a different set of values to match.
Planning board staff wanted to use a neighborhood which had been established in a resubdivision request, which was granted a few months ago, for a lot just a few houses down from this one.
The applicant wanted to use a larger definition of neighborhood. “Where we differ, and the key here, is the neighborhood that you choose,” said Steve Kaufman, attorney for the property owner.
If the applicant’s larger neighborhood was used, the new lots would have been closer to the middle in terms of meeting the criteria.
The applicant also mentioned the possibility of bringing in a resubdivision which would split the lot into two side-by-side lots, but there was no data available on how those proposed lots would compare to the existing neighborhood.
The board was in favor of using the staff’s definition neighborhood. “I can’t distinguish why we should look at a different neighborhood this time than we did just a few months ago,” said Commissioner Meredith Wellington.
Wellington expressed concern that the applicant had actually attempted two different definitions at what the neighborhood should be. “It seems like there’s a try to just get enough,” she said.
When using the staff’s neighborhood, the proposed lots fall into the bottom of neighborhood in terms of area, frontage and shape. However, they do fall within the range; there is one smaller lot, one pipestem and there are other lots with equally small frontage. “Right now it’s on the edge on a number of factors,” said Commission Vice-Chair Wendy Perdue.
Derick Berlage, chair of the Planning Board mused over the theoretical possibility of where the board must draw the line when deciding about compatibility.
“How close to the edge can you be and still satisfy the test of being of the same character?” he said.
Each of the Board Members gave their opinion in turn, and each said essentially the same thing. None of them would be likely to vote for a pipestem resubdivision, but they would be willing to look at a side-by-side alignment. None said that they would vote for the latter, but only that they could not make a decision on it. “I don’t have a basis to make that judgment,” Perdue said.