Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-05RE~ Nw~TING The PLAN~ BOARD held a regular monthly meeting on M(~qDAY ET~G, MAY 5, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Office Meeting Room. The following members were present and voting: William Chepulis, Chairman; John J.'~Mc~teiro, Vice-Chairman; Joyce A. DiTore; and Michael P. Roberts. ~ PT,ANS NO~ RE~IRING APPROVAL: 1 - NM. T. HYDE, JR., Forest St. - John Calla~, Eng., representing. Plan dated Na~ 1980 showing lots 1-4. This is part of 15 acres and part of an over all land use plan drawn up by Oallahan. The petitioner wants to c~ntrol the balance of his 15 acres. Motion by Monteiro and second by Roberts to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under subdivisic~ control law. Unan. vote. L. MINICUCCI, JR., SPECIAL P~NIT WATERS~m~I DISTRICT - Continued Public Hearing.' new plans were presented. The driveway line was moved to the lo~ line smd of the 150 ft. about 10 ft. falls within the "no cut" zone. There would be nothA,g we would be forced to cut that would violate the statute, stated Atty. Cagle. He had not contacted the Con. Com. as yet. Susan St. Pierre requested that the driveway Be staked where it is goi~ to intersect and the BOARD will view the site. The balance of info requested was not sul~nitted. Bill Driscoll, abutter, felt that the plan was hiding alot of the facts and repeated testimony giv~ at previ~as hearing. He contends that the lot is nothing but 'a drainage swale and the total dr~age from the upper hill includ~ing Minicucci's present lot and his ~ lot ends up in this area. The By-Law reads that you c~-~ot cut within 25 ft. of a tributary. Motion then made l~j RoBerts to continue the public hearing until Nay 19th and at that time make a determination as to whether the "no cut" zone is being violated. AlsO, at that time, advise the petitioner whether he should continue with this project or not. The new plans should be distributed to the different departments. Second by DiTore. Board to view the site. Cagle's statement was ~b~t no o~e should ~e penalized because his property drains onto someone else's. "I have engineers that assure me that any drainage problems can be corrected up there and we ask that you further consider this." The vote on the motion was unanimous. The Chairman noted that the ~OARD is in receipt of an additional letter from the Con. Com. which is on file. ~ LANE (BARDTCOE[RT ESTATE~): Bond Amount - J. Warliok present. Letter from Cyr dated Nay 5, 1980 recommending $136,0OO (1650 ft. of road). Borgesi's figure was given orally as $36,400. Warlick tOld those present that he w~uld most likely present a mortgage bond. M~tien lry Monteiro to notify Warlick that the Bo~y Lane Bond amount is as above, in total = $172,400; BPW amount subject to confirmation in writing. Second by DiTore and unanimous vote. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSIC~{: PRESCOTT ST. DEVELOPMENT - The Planner stated that it is unfortunate that Mm. Hedstrom is not present because he was going to gather information relative to this project for presentation to the BOARD. George S~ern, Con. Com., stated that there is a letter from Atty. Schiavoni dated Apr. 24 which states that they are going to go ahead and work on the project but stay away from the wetlands. Also, a letter from the state which s~ates they can go ahead provided they stay a~r~y from the wetlands and there is or will be an Order of Conditions_ forthcoming. Evidently there is a new plan which we have not seen, Stern added. The BOAI~D had not received a new pla~. Schiavoni explained that they modified their original dra~ plans and that the BOARD must recall those plans. ~tern commented that the Con. Com. is not opposed to the project but w~nts to see it done right. BOARD decided to write to Schiavoni and request a copy of the new plans. Roberts requested Susan St. Pierre to contact the state and inform them that we are not even aware of what is going on out there. Chepulis volun- teered to call the state. Susan advised that the BOARD could issue a stop work order due to the fa~t that this is not in conformance with our approved plan. a) AI~DREW CIRCLE REALTY TRUST RE SCO~T'3 PC~D ELEVATI(N - letter dated April ~9, ~980 on file stating they are able to meet ~03.2' elevation and asking for tentative approval. Letter d~ted May 2, 2980 from Con. Com. to A.C.R.T,, copy on file. They do not approve of the 103.2' and requested ttmt Item 12, elevation of 104.5' be complied with. b) MVPC RE LTA TIME - copy of letter written to 2kl. of Selectmen was read which indicated MVPO's desire to have the Selectmen authorize LTA time. Monteiro stated that according to the by-laws of the Commission and ~ regulations, the Pl~_~_ning 3o~rd is the agency authorized to perform this duty. Roberts felt we should write to them with a copy to the Selectmen and made a motion to notif~ aladstone, MVPC, that we feel they have exceeded their authority and do not agree with their vote to have aaron sign off on L~A time. If there is any difficulty in obtaining signatures or authorization to notify the Planning Board to ensure that the request is processed. Copy to Selectmen. Monteiro seconded. ~wton Osgoed elaborated that the intent was not to by-pass anybody but to make the whole process work a little more smoothly. I don't objeOt to however you want to do it, he added, just want the time to be allocated fairly arid that everybody knows what is going on. Roberts interjected that his motion had no r~flection on Gayton. It was determined by all that the letter was poorly written. UnanimOUs vote on motion. Note: Joyce DiTcre receivez the minutes of MVPC and the A-95's which she t~rns over to Susan S~t. Pierre. SCOTT'S P~D: Scott Follansbee asked if some of t~e members of this BOARD could atte~ud the Con. Com. meeting on ~ed. night; Cyr will be t~ere. He reiterated that at the defini- tive sta~e they submitted two drainage plans, one at 102 and one at 10~.5 which were reviewed by the BOARD. ~yr preferred that you go along with the one you did, the Con. Com. would like to see the alternate drainage plan; we could maintain the 104 elevation with the alternate plan with the alter-~tive pipe; the situation is in abeyance right now and if we can move it along locally, then fine. Did n~t object holding it off until Thurs. Monteiro personally would go along if the Con. Com. I and Highway Surveyor are in agreement. S~ern said he would like to keep it on a local leve~; if Scott goes ahead with ~he appeal then we lose control. It seems as though it can bel done, but they don't a~ree with Cyr yet. The Planner stated that at the last on-site inspection the Con. Com. agreed that they would try to compromise if the Planning Board wouldi also and now it seems that we are Back at the beginning again. S~ern said they had met wi~h F. ~elinas and discussed the 103.2. James Lafond, Con. 0om. member~ expressed the feelings of his dept. by s~at~g that the 103 ~ould not adequately protect the water table or the interests of the ~etlands Act. George Stern also mentioned wells in the area and that lowering the water table would adversely affect them. He then introduced Lafond, John Splendore, and Dick Doherty the Co~mission's new members. ~ud CFr stated that his opinion had not changed - if they can't mee~ the drainage require- ments, thenfdrop the pond. Scott felt that with the ~% grade on the pipes, etc. they can accomplish it at 103.2. Oyr concerned with the well-being of the subdivision being more important th~u ~. difference in the pond elevation, i Splendors stated that the 10~o~ was not at all arbitrary and very conservative. Scott ~entioned that the problem is at the r May 5, 3780 -oont. outflow portion. Nors discussion. Notion made by Roberts that with the supportive m~terial documenting the statement in letter of April 7, 1980, the Planning Board endorse the level of 103.2 for construction work to Be done at stated location. Second by M~nteiro and unanimous vote. BOARD OF APPEALS LEGAL NOTICES: a) Giglio - motion by DiTore and secend By Monteiro that this appears to be a business in a residential zcme. Unanimous. b) Rea - motion By Monteir° and second by DiTore that there be no objection and remind of conformance to the Earth Removal by-law. Unanimous. o) Boeglin - no objection By motion and second of Menteiro and RoBerts, respectively. Unanimous vote. B.A. DECISI(~S: received, read, and on file. LEGAL NOTICE: CO~. C0~. - Olympic Construction, April ~0. PLAN~ INFO: Would like to update the Rules & Regs. Before close of fiscal year. Susan said she would prepare materials and mail to each member prior to a meeting. Also, sanding letters of revues% for recommendation to other dspts. Master Plan meeting on Thursd~ evening; all members present to a~tend. Gave members present m subdivision update. Request security from Ingalls Crossing II, Raleigh Tavern II, and Wildwood. Advised that Bridle Path (Great Pond Woodland) should be finished. To send Turtle a letter requesting that it be temple%ed by July 1st. Winter Hill Estates - has a completion da~e of 1979. Request completion before July 1st. Foller Farms - Oyr said they are roughing the road. Send a letter requesting covenant or bond to Jay Burke. Susan then suggested ~hat the BOARD star~ using the inspection sheet again and review Before final of release of funds is made. MATTERS: WORKSHOP BY N. A. HISTORICAL SOCIETY - Nay 28. Chepulis reported ~n conference between Willie, NoEvoy, Joyce and himself at 4 P.M. on thi~ date in an executive session. Re changing the name of Woodridge Road to Rid~ Way. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ~!iam Chepuli~ -- ~ ~ecretary / Gilda Blackstock