Occasionally stepping into the Cronin Conference Room can be akin to an adventure in Wonderland. Last night the Planning Board heard the application for an ANR on Hillside and the Mad Hatter’s tea party was under way. Attorney Marion McEttrick sought approval for an ANR (approval not required) application to build a home on Hillside Street on a set of lots owned by John Fandrey. No sooner did she take a seat at the table than Mr. Whiteside, Chair, quickly challenged the application on two points.
First, Whiteside noted that the plans bore the name of the estate of Joseph Fandrey but said, in fact, the applicant and property owner is John Fandrey. McEttrick acknowledged that was the case. The estate had been not been resolved when the plan was first submitted. She said she would have the name on the plan corrected. The second issue is what took the discussion off in a direction that to the casual observer was hard to understand. Chair Whiteside contends that according to zoning law, the application is for a subdivision and that the proper amount of frontage for one of the lots does not exist. Whiteside reviewed the law and argued that “the first part (of the law) applies” and therefore “this is then a subdivision.” Ms. McEttrick did not see it that way.”We are combining lots to make one lot,” she explained. They went back and forth on this for awhile. Whiteside said it was an easily correctable error. McEttrick said, “I simply don’t understand. [It’s the] creation of a single ANR lot.” Whiteside asked, “Is the property being divided? The answer is yes.” The debate on whether property lots were being combined or subdvided was going on when Mr. Bobrowski, an attorney representing one of the neighbors of the proposed development, mentioned that technically many municipalities characterize some of the property being discussed in this proposal as “parcels” not “lots.” The solution appeared to be simply relabeling the plan to reflect which lots were in fact parcels and would not be redeveloped without “zoning relief”. Problem solved. McEttrick agreed to relabel the plan pending a conversation with her client and to work with the Chair on acceptable language. Whiteside was amenable. “I would relabel it.” But back to Brobowski – he was not there to discuss the difference between lots and parcels.
There is no such thing as a timid lawyer. At this session there were three: Whiteside, McEttrick, and Brobowski. Brobowski, who was not asked to formally introduce himself and spoke from his chair as often as from a seat at the table, asked if the application was going to be withdrawn. He said that even if relabeled, he had a problem with Lot A. In short, he said he would appeal any granting of an ANR. He was previously involved in a legal case Gates vs the Planning Board of Dighton, a case he won. He insisted the issue was similar. In that case, the developer was thwarted from developing properties which had frontage on one road but access through a back way. The Hillside property has frontage on Ford Ranch Road but the home would likely be off an existing driveway on Hillside. No can do, according to Brobowski and case law confirms it. (You can find the case here). McEttrick argued that there were many precedents for her request and that the situation on Hillside was for a single home not 10 and did not have a tortuous driveway design. She said these previous examples were extreme cases and hers was not. Her client looking for “access from a common driveway we (the client) have a right to use.” Brobowski said, “I do not agree with Attorney McEttrick. . . We will file an appeal if you endorse the ANR . . . just so everyone understands why I am here.”
Ms. McEttrick said she wished “we could get into a different mode . . . I get the feeling you are not going to approve anything [and that] is not an acceptable result. . .It [a building] will happen.” The board had until midnight to make a decision. If they grant the ANR, Brobowski appeals. If they deny the ANR, McEttrick appeals. Board member Bernie Lynch in particular appeared uncomfortable. “We already have one lawsuit,” he said, likely referring to the appeal of a denial for an open space permit on Hillside. McEttrick granted them a week’s grace to consult with town counsel and make a decision. There will likely be an appeal, and only one can win.
At the beginning of the session, Mr. Whiteside had explained that he had an appraisal performed on his property and that there is no conflict of interest in his presiding on this matter. He is an abutter to an abutter. He said that he is not disqualified as he has no financial interest and that the appraisal refutes and rebuts any claim that he does. Therefore, Chair Whiteside explained that, “Accordingly I am going to participate [in this matter] and I am going to vote on it.”