Neighbor counsel asks board to reclassify Fisher subdivision as 'major' and keep record open

The Planning Board opened a public hearing on Aug. 6 for a minor subdivision application by Rebecca Fisher for property at 842 Tamarack Road, which proposes splitting an 82.17-acre parcel into two roughly five-acre building lots and a remaining ~70-acre parcel. Mark Danskin, the applicant's land surveyor, described access using an existing private driveway that the application says will be upgraded to town standards and subject to a private roadway maintenance agreement.

Attorney Mark Miranda, representing adjacent landowner Charles Bolson, filed a supplemental opposition and summarized four key objections: (1) the access is functionally a private road — "approximately 3,600 feet, roughly 24 times the maximum length of a driveway" — and therefore the application should be processed as a major subdivision under the town code; (2) the proposal fails to provide the code-required 100-foot agricultural buffer between nonagricultural uses (the roadway) and Bolson's active silvopasture operation; (3) applicant counsel has an asserted conflict of interest based on prior representation of the neighbor; and (4) the wetlands and stormwater record is incomplete, with limited field work and insufficient topographic data.

Miranda asked the board to keep the hearing open, require a full parcel wetland delineation and stormwater analysis, impose the 100-foot buffer if a nonagricultural use is confirmed, and decline further submissions through counsel he said was conflicted. Miranda said these deficiencies could require reclassification to a major-subdivision review and additional public notice.

Neighbors raised public-safety concerns about emergency access; George Hill de Brand told the board a 90-degree turn in the access had previously prevented fire trucks from entering and said wildfire risk from the adjoining woods could threaten nearby homes.

The applicant's surveyor and counsel contested the assertion that the feature is a road in the legal sense and said the project was advanced as a minor subdivision using a private roadway designation; applicant counsel said he would respond in writing to the points raised. The board discussed three procedural options — close the hearing, continue it to another meeting, or close oral testimony but accept written comments — and ultimately voted to close in-person comment while accepting additional written submissions through Aug. 20, 2026. The applicant was asked to submit one consolidated written response for both the Planning Board and ZBA in advance of the Aug. 20 meeting.

Next steps: the board will review written comments and applicant responses at its Aug. 20 meeting and may consider continuing the matter to Sept. 3 depending on new materials.