Created on Thursday, 28 February 2008 06:44
Last Updated on Thursday, 28 February 2008 06:44
To The Editor:
Two years ago my family was issued a nine-lot subdivision permit on our property. We were forced to challenge the permit because of two provisions required in the permit.
The first requirement was that our current driveway entrance on Route 100 be substantially changed even though this entrance was not the entrance to the subdivision and had nothing to do with the subdivision at all.
The second requirement was that we were required to provide two rights of way to the nine-lot subdivision to the north of our property and we or the subsequent landowners would be required to build and maintain these rights of way at our expense, not the town's.
The town offered no compensation for the land required for the rights of way that no one wanted except the planning commission and the select board. One of these rights of way would destroy the water springs serving three families and the other was right through our front lawn. The town of Waitsfield spent in excess of $15,000 in legal expenses fighting for these rights of way that no one wanted except the town boards.
Landowners, when you vote on the new subdivision regulations on Town Meeting Day by Australian ballot, the regulations now read as may
require instead of shall
require rights of way. It is still up to the development review board as to that requirement. Therefore, landowners beware that conditions can still come up in the future even if the wording now reads "may" instead of "shall."
Waitsfield landowner and
Select Board member