Discussion on Fir Avenue repaving continued for second time

The Board of Survey and Planning continued discussion of the repaving of Fir Avenue during their Wednesday meeting. The initial discussion, which took place in Dec. 2025, was continued to April to give time for concerns from the board and neighbors to be addressed through alterations to the plan and a site walk.

According to developer Curtis Beaton and his legal representation Phillip McCourt, an independent engineering report on the project and a letter from a lawyer representing an abutter were presented to them immediately before the meeting. Since there was no time to read and respond to the material, McCourt requested the case be continued to a later date. 

The board voted to continue the meeting to allow for the city engineering and law departments to comment on the documents, but allowed the public hearing for the case to continue as so many residents had shown up to speak. The board did not close the public hearing, which will allow for more public comment on the project in the future.

Abutters share concerns regarding project legality, drainage and road width

Five abutters and one legal representative shared concerns during the public comment portion of the meeting. Three main themes, the legality of the project, potential lack of stormwater drainage and the widening of the road encroaching on property, emerged as concerns for residents.

Abutter Austin Mitchell of 59 Piedmont Ave. spoke neutrally about the project, saying that as long as stormwater run-off, snow removal and road width concerns were addressed, he had no problem with the project. 

Board chairman William Creonte assured Mitchell that there was no way the drainage issue would be neglected. 

“I am a hound with drainage,” Creonte said, referencing his own struggles with his business flooding as evidence for how seriously he takes the issue. 

Board member S. Anthony DeVito echoed Creonte’s sentiment. “Drainage is one of our biggest topics,” he said.

Sue Hildreth of 11 Fir Ave. echoed Mitchell’s concerns about stormwater run-off, adding that she didn’t believe that the developer had the legal right to reconstruct the private way. Hildreth had additional concerns about the soil and rock being excavated or even blasted through during construction, which could increase noise levels in the area and have negative effects on the structural integrity of houses in the area. 

Creonte responded, saying that there would be assessments done by contractors if the project was approved that would address those concerns to make sure that there was no structural damage. 

Hildreth’s husband, Dimitry Zarkh, spoke at the meeting as well, stating that the project would “take deeded land from abutters with no due process” and would “change the character of the neighborhood.” He said he did not want Beaton to straighten the road when he repaved it, as it would encroach on property lines. Creonte told Zarkh that the road would be configured as per the city atlas. “However it was designed is how it’s going to be,” he said.

Michael O’Neil, a lawyer representing both Hildreth and Zarkh, argued that since the road is a private way, abutters own the land extending from their property to the midpoint of the road. Creonte said that his understanding was that abutters only own the private way if they pay taxes on the actual land. O’Neil was unable to verify if abutters were paying taxes on the roadway with the information he had at the meeting. Creonte said he hoped the city law department would be able to assert whether or not abutters own the road.

Ward 2 Councilor Caren Dunn made a brief comment, wondering if building permits had been secured before construction on the road began. Beaton said that building permits had not been secured, but he had received opinions that said that the three lots he owned were buildable.

Pat Seminara of 61 Mount Walley Road said that she was most concerned about how her property would be protected from construction. Creonte informed her that was a question for the building department and thanked her for attending and sharing her concerns.

The board did not share a date for the next discussion of the case.