Planning Board Approves Court Remanded ANR Plan

HARWICH – It has been more than four years since the planning board denied an approval not required plan for an eight-acre parcel along Hall’s Path in East Harwich. The decision was appealed, and a court ordered that it be remanded to the planning board for endorsement. 

That happened last Thursday, Nov. 6.

 The property was owned by Paul R. O’Connell, III in 2021. Developer Christopher Wise had an agreement to purchase the property. The proposed approval not required (ANR) plan sought to create four one-acre lots along Hall’s Path. The fifth lot, consisting of 4.57 acres to the rear of the one-acre lots, while having a connection to Hall’s Path, was deemed unbuildable because it did not have the required frontage to meet ANR regulations.

 The proposal to cut the 8.46-acre parcel into five lots abutting Hall’s Path was contentious. Neighbors protested the condition of the road, arguing the road was not passable. The select board expressed concerns for the removal of property bounds, and a small section of abutting property had been disturbed. The select board ordered a gate installed to prevent equipment from accessing the road.

 When denying the ANR plan, the planning board determined the division of the acreage would need to be done through the town’s subdivision control regulations, not as an ANR.

Attorney Andrew Singer, representing the applicant in the planning board hearing in June 2021, made a detailed presentation, noting that there are references to Hall’s Path dating back to 1730 and citing Land Court decisions that determined the road was a public way. He also presented a letter from former town clerk Anita Doucette confirming that the path was a public way.

The board rejected Singer’s argument. On behalf of Wise, Attorney Michael Princi filed a lawsuit based on the board’s decision in Barnstable Superior Court.

 The complaint charged that the decision was based upon local hysteria and anti-development sentiment. Members of the select, before and after the public meeting, created a hostile atmosphere at the planning board meeting that swayed the board away from lawfully carrying out its responsibility to endorse the ANR plan, the suit asserted.

The suit sought to have the court enter a judgment annulling the decision of the planning board and declaring that the applicant is entitled to have the ANR plan endorsed.

According to the Town Planner and Community Development Director Christine Flynn, the lawsuit is still pending.

In last Thursday evening’s planning board hearing, Flynn said the court ordered that the case be remanded for the four buildable one-acre lots, while the larger fifth lot did not meet the requirement for ANR approval. She said the case has been reviewed by town counsel and the select board.

 “My recommendation is to endorse the ANR that’s in the packet,” Flynn said.

Without comment the board voted unanimously to approve the ANR plan.