Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-12The North Andove? Dia¥~ning Board held a regular meeting on May tB, 1988 in the Town Hall. Selectmen's Meeting Room. Fhe meeting was called to order at 8:00 o.m. by George Per'no, Vice--Chai~man. Also present were John Simons, Clerk and Erich Nitzschs. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 9:30 p.m. Michael Leafy was absent. Discussions Breckenridqe - Bono Reduction Scott Stocking, To~n Planner, stated that a letter was received from the applicant asking the Board to reduce the bond for street trees along Gray Street. Mr. DiRaffael felt that it was covered under the State Statue. Scott Stocking visited the site and some damage was done to some of the roots when the detention oond was being built. John Simons said that the bond was a normal condition of the Planning Board for trees within the subdivision. George Perna concurred with the Town Planner in that he had also vis,ted ~he site and found damage to some of the trees. Erich Nitzsohe stated for the record the conditional approval stated the no tree cutting ~iil be allowed in areas where tree cover shall be maintained. A bon~ in 'the amount of $10,000 shall be posted with the Planning Board to insure replanting if builders or developer does remove any trees. Also a~y cutting in the public way shall conform to MGL C~apter MOTION: By John Simons to direcz the 'Town Planner to tell the trustee that the Board does not intend to waive the condition. SECOND: Erich Nit~sche VOTE: Unanimous of those oresent. Scott Stocking, Town Planner stated that he had received a letter from Bill Dolan~ Fi~'e Chief, which s~a~ed ~hat he was distressed upon reading the conditions of t~e Planning Board or~ eliminating the street i~vel doors. Scott stated the the aopiicant did not appeal the Board's decision at the time. The Board h~id n~ problem with doors in the back. Scott stated that Mc. Todd nad drooped off a photo today of what the building would look like and it was not what was presented to the Board. John Simons agreed that it was not the same. John also stated that at this time he did not worst to change the decision. The plans have been filed in the Registry of Deeds Office. George Perna stated that no motion~ no action Bear Hill Subdivision MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to direct the planner to start proceeding on retaining the bond for $3!,000 a~ outlined. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those oresent Brookview Estates Scott Stocking, Town Planner stated that he had received a letter from Tom Neve~ dated April 28, 1988 requesting an extension until August 19, i988. George Perna asked Scott how long has this being going on. Scott stated that that the original hearing was heard in December. Scott further stated that a traffic study was being done. Members of the Board expressed the concern that it was ~ long extension. Because of the issue of the long extension the Board tabled the discussion until the Chairman arrived. ~.p~roval Not Forest Street - Creatin__q__a ~.~ The applicant was not present at the time. application until the applicant arrived. Candlestick Road - Chang~i~g a Lot line The engineer was not present at the time. application until the engineer arrived. Bonds Hollyri~e -.B~_.Acce~.~_e_ The Board hold the ~he Board hold the MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to accept the Tri-Party Agreement. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Breckenridq.~__s~a. te__~s~-i_~_o~]d~ptance Applicant was not present at the time. MOTION: Erich Nitzsche to place on the next meeting's agenda SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Waqon Wheels - Covenant & Cony~yance of E~sements MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to accept for review Forms M, I and Easements. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Brook Farm - Plan Si~B~ Need Easements, Covenant, Revised Plans. MOTION: By Erich Nitzsohe to accept foc ourposes of review by the Chairman for compliance with the approval. SECOND: John Silicons VOLE: Unanimous of those present. Jeffrmy Place Plans Si~ned Attorney for the applicant and the engineer were not present at this time. Hold till the engineer and attorney arrives. vice Chairman. George Per'ha asked that "~ arid . ~,,,e Bo recess for !0 minutes MOTION: By John Simons to recess for I0 minutes SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VO~E: Unanimous c~f those present. The Planning Board reconviened Breckenridqe Bond -- Acceptance and Request for Reduction MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to accept the Form H - Performance Secured by a Passbook and the passbook in the amount of $18,000 to insure completion of the facilities, subject to the Chairman's review for format. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those pceser~ Kenneth DiRaffael spoke to the Board regarding the bond amount for Breckenridge, spec'ifical!y $10,000 beir~g held for trees. Mr. DiRaffael stated that excavation had been done and they were down to grade and elevation, remai~ing work at the bottom of detention area and loam it and seed it. He asked the Bo~rd co reduce the bond by $10,000. E,-ich Nitzsche s~ated that the $i0,000 was loc trees within the subdivision not the street trees. E~ ich ,'~ead from the decision specifically Condition #?. MR. D~Raffaet was under the impression that the $i0,000 was for the seven st~eet t~ees. John Simons stated that bonds 'For trees within the subdi,/it~ion were normal practice of the Board, a standa~'-d condition. M~~ DiRaffael stated that he had spoken to Scott Stocking, Town Plannei-, a~d ~hat his opinion was it was for the seven street trees. John Simons stated that was not the Board intent. John stated that the money was being held for what is being disturbed wihtin the subOivision during construction and re-affirmed him that this was a standard condition and t~at the Board would not waive that condition. Mr. DiRaffael wanteJ to know if the Board would reduce the bond. George Perna stated %hat he had visited the site and disagreed with Mr. DiRaffael on the co)all'finn of the seven street trees ,~s to bei~g not damaged. Mc. DiRaff'ael also wanted to know if the lots could be released, Joh~i Simor, s told him h~ ~mad to file a Lot Release Focm with the Board. Coventry Estates Modification John Simons read the legal notice to open the public hearing. Joseph Cristaldi Coventry , weve~op.~e ~t spoke to the Board stating the reason for the modification, !-ei~'ing {he 50' boffer on Lot 1~. John Simons wanted :o know whac the ic. pography was like in the area, were the trees were or not tr-ees. Jc~seph Cristaldi showed John on the olans, citing that there was quite a bic of scrub in the area. John asked about the pine trees. Joseph stateO that they were on the Town Farm oroperty. Mr. Cristaldi stated ~:he c~ting the house was no problem but because of the scrubs, iandscapi~g it would be a problem. John Simons wanted to know the difference in tills lot from the other lots that abut the stone wall boundary. Joseph stateo that an old horse trail ran along the stone wall and what exist from the stone wall into the lot is scrub, not the true tree line and the condition stated to keep it in its natural state. He would like to dress up the area within the 50' buffer. Erich Nitzsche would like to visit the site. He and George Perna expressed tme need for screening as well as plans that show the location of the building, where the house witi go, not in this buffer area. Relaxing the buffer does not mean the house will be moved back. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, May 14, at 9:00 a.m. John Simons had a couoie of concerns, one relating to a lot of siltation in the detention pond, maybe rio-rap would take care of the problem. He also wanted to see a different concept on the common driveways. Joseph Cristaldi stated that originally there were three common driveways, no~ only two. John wanted the Town Planner, Scott Stocking, to look into the common driveways that were aooroved. MOTION: By Erich Nitzsche to close the public hearing on Coventry Estates Modification, Lot I8, on the Conditional App,-oval and set up a site visit on Saturday and take the matter under advisement. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of' those present. Paul Hedstrom arrived at 9:30 p.m. George Perna turned the meeting over to the Chairman. ~petitive Petition - Texaco - Osqood Street John Simons read the legal notice to open the public hearing. John Ferreira. the applicant spoke to the Board stating that at the time he appeared Oefore the Board of Apoeais he did not have a detailed plan and that he did not go back to the Board after that with the plans they requested, detailed. The Board of Appeals denied the application for a variance which was for setbacks from the property line and a canopy with a sign. Paul Hedstrom stated that a substantial change is necessary and he wanted to know what those changes were. Mr Ferreira stated that he had built a self service regulation on the concrete pad, John Simons stateO that even though the Board may find substantial changes in the plans, it does not mea~ that the Board of Appeals will approve it. The applicant still has to go before the Board of Appeals -For the variances. The Board wanted to take the sign off the canopy. The Board will ask Town Counsel for advise on the material and substantial changes and no detailed plans vs detailed plans. MOTION: By John Simons to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement. SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous of those present. ~e~etitive Petition - DiGloira - Satelite Dish John Simons rea~ the legal notice to open the public hearing. Attorney Bruce Turgiss~ representing the Di Gloria's~ spoke to the Planning Board. Also present was Gary Underwood who had input satelite dishes an~ the new FCC ruling on Town's authoruty of local law zoning authority to regulate tboses issues. Attorney Turgiss stated that his client dJ.d not attend the Board of Appeals hearing for their satelite dish because they did not know the date of the hearing. The Board of Appeals denied the special permit on that merit. Attorney Turgiss st~teo that they were before the Planning Board with materi~al and substantial changes, that being the applicant would appear for the hearing even if he had to pick them up himself. He also elaborated on the new FCC ruling which basically says local authority is prevented from regulating sate!ire dishes unless it is reasonable for aesthetic means. Gary Underwood, New England Antenna Se!--vice of New Hampshire spoke generalizing what the FCC ruling was~ related to putting any excessive cost on satelite ~ishes or to zone them in a way that they are restricting them from receiving the signals. Mr Underwood stated that in order to receive the sig~al you need a clear line of sight. The Bylaw states~ behind ~he house and at ground level. Mr. Underwood stated that the antenna would be faciug the house and the dish could not receive the signal. The DiGloria's do n~t have acces~ ~,~ c~lb!e television, there are no cables running down Monter~o Way. Paul Hedstrom asked why. Attorney ~urgiss stated tha~ it was too c~s~ly. Philip DiGloria, Jr., spoke to t~e Bomrd giving them some background on how he go~ to this point, being at the Planning Board. Mr. DiGloria received a tettec from the Buildi~g In=pector saying he was in violation of the Zoning Bylaw. He then filed an appi~cation foc the Board of Appeals. Mr. DiG!o~ ia stated that ?~e did not receive word of the hearing. Paul Hedstrom wanted to know the mater~al and substantial changes. Attorney Turgiss stated that the petitioners would be there to state their case and that the ruling <from FCC) directly impacts u~on the ordinance. Paul wanted to know ho~ it would impact the ordinance. Attorney Turgi~ stated that it ~ight pre-empt the authority of the Board to regulate satelite dishes. Mike Chmura, ~5 Mon]erio Way stated that a material change was made in the past two week:s, sh~-ubs have i)een pia~ted and the dish cannot be seen with the landscaping that has d~-)~e i) fc~nt of the he, use. Paul Hedstrom tusked if anyone else had any input, pros or cons. Linda Carver, 48 Monterio Way cited houses on the street that were up for sale or vaca~t. Paul Heds~com sr,,ted that he did not feel that the issue of the sateii~e dish was the John Simons read a ].ettec from uoLiis Rissin, 59 B]uebery Hill, asking the Board to deny this applicatioF. Atto,'ney Turgiss summed up by stating that the Board of Appeals decision was based on the fact ~hat Mr. DiGloria was r~ot present a~ the nearing. MOTION: By John Simons to.close ~he public hearing~ take the mat~er under advisement and talk to Town Counsel. SECOND: Erich Nitzsoh~ VOTE: Unanim(~us of those p~esent. Abbott Villaq~ Modificatio~ John Simons read the legal notice t,') open the public hea,-ing. John also read a letter received from Bill Hmui-~ciak, D.P.W. Paul Hedstrom stated that thc~ modif'icmtion ~as a Planning Board Oicected modification of ~n alleged defacto approval i~ arden to effectiYely put the conditions on the subdivision. The conditions were made based on the 1~800 foot cul-de-sac length. D.P.W. wants the cul-~de-eac to the end of the pcoperty, with the possibilty of connecting to Woodberry Lane. Bill Hmurciak read condition Three gate valves at the intersection of the new watermain with the watermain tnmt e×ist on Abbott Street. Bill stated that it was inappropriate. He did no~ know were the condition came from and that it had never been a practive of the D.P.W. Bill said that by outting three gate valves, service would be interupted and if there were 150 homes on a dead-end street they would have no service for a day and that could be a problem. Erich Nitzsche stated that it would be better not to have water for a day than have breaks someplace, not planned for future dates that have a break and not have water for ~hree days. Bill Hmuricak stated that it was quite possible that there were enough gates in the neighborhood to take care of the problem. Bill felt that making a live tap, tapping sleeve valve was an appropriate way to make the connections. Tom Neve spoke saying it; would be better off using what is standard engineering practice to tap into a watermain which is a tapping sleeve and valve, if you want a gate valve somewhere else down the road you go down and ~ut one ~.n. If you put three valve~ ~n at an intersection you have to ~ut three valves in~ cut the ~ipe, you have to put address-a-cuppling to keep both ~ides of it together and you weaken the whole arrangment by doing tha~ and end u~ having a weakened system at the arrangment with three raises rather than a one valve cut into somewhere where you need it now you nave a weak intersection. Tom stated that he agreed with Bill Hmurciak that e tapping sleeve valve is the way you make a tap into a live line and ~f you need valves somewhere for any other reason you cut one in. Erich Nitzsche said that he only disagreed to the point there that it does not weaken the junction if it is done properly. Paul Hedstrom spoke to Bii] Hmurciak citing condition ~80 relative to off-site drainage not being directly addressed in ~he order of conditions. Paul stated that this project has been around four years, mhd to say the off-site drainaqe has not been directly addressed in the mrder of conOition is absolutly preposterous. Paul said to Bill that he was not saying his conclusion was wrong, but if the condition ~0 asked for computations c~:rtifyi~g existlnq [~eak rates and asked if Bill was objecting to the ccmdiZion a~o The calcwlation in the file. Bi!! said me did not know if the calculations ~,ere right or wrong and that was trrelzvant because whether they dot,' t: increase run-off or not, the existing run-~ff already surcharges the (~xisting culverts. Tom Neve spoke stating that the bound.sties of the hydrologic system were designed so that it does not increase run--off and impact of t~e boundaries of' the site. The existing conditions are Flooding conditions and trey will continue to be flooding conditions with the exception of the one main system that runs through the site where there is a detention pond and have the ability to hol~ back a little bit mo?'e water to help out the ex,sting conditions and that was done. Paul Hedstrom asked Tom that if ~he existing conoitions are flooding conditions wouldn't you design a system to not only meet increase peak rates but to r-educe the floodin~ situation. ]'om stateo that he had so in the design of the subdivisions. Paul asked why after three years was D.P.W. in disagreement with the Planning Department/Engineer/Applicant. Tom did not know. Tom stated that he had not had this conversation before with Bill and that he had not been asked to explain ~t. Tom also stated that he had done extensive work and been revised twic:e Dy Senior Hydrogolist from !.E.P. did the flood routing and it was reviewed by BSC Consultants as requested by the Conservation Commission. Paul stated that his real conf~isio~-! was why the Planning effort resulted in conditions which Public Wor~is is now taking issue with. Tom stated that, Bill is concern=ed about existing conditions and lack of response from him (Tom) in making those conditions better maybe talking about some off-site alteratio~ that souls possibily (by upgrading site conditions) could p~ssibll¥ help the existing conditions found in the area. George Perna asked Fom if his caJ. c,J!ations showed there is still flooding. Tom stat_~d that his calculations showed there will be less flooding afterwards than there i,s now in one location on Abbott Street. The answer to Geo~-g,e~s question ~= yem. Paul stated that the Board had his letter (Tom's) ef December Pgth, which he assumed, as we always do, we incorporated totsiiy~ now if some of the study has resulted in a concern being identifieO. Bill s~ated that further concern is in relation to letters sent ~o the Board from Buddy Cyr relative to off-site drainage problems wh~ci~ were ~'o~ Bill's concern prior to January 1st and a oumber of letters ::n f~ le that Buddy has sent relative to teat oroO]em but were never addressed. Paul asked Bill if he could concisely summerize !tis CONES ¥~s suc~] that the Board could incorporate a condition into a revised decision, i'he intent of the Planning Board to adopt conditions on the amended pi-i~, because depending on which legal theory you take, Abbott Vitlag~ is e~t,her an approve~ subdivision in appeal or a default:ed approval wi~h no conditions. Those conditions that were put on the approval loc wh:ch there is a suit filed on 'the Dian that has been ce~-t~fied by the To~,~) Clerk to have been approved by in'-action by the Planning Board. It ts cumbersome legally as it is from the planning perspective. That is the intent of the Board. If there are any changes to :he conditions ~:hat were adopted by the Plapning Board, the Board ~ili incorpocalic~ t?ic~se changes if sc, directed by Town Department · George Perna stated that the Board was looking for concise language. Bill Hmurciak stated that changes relative to this problem would be that the two existing culverts on Abbott Street should be upgraded. Paul Hedstrom suggested that 'the Board direct: the Planner to prepare the conditions, ail mF them? that are appropriate for Abbott Village and that the conditions that are appcoprlate are the ones that the Board already adopteO~ changed by those concerns that Bill Hmurciak has identified, that the Board thinks is appropriate, for example, the Board's condition on the i,800 foot vs 1,~00 foot as the Board said go to that station for now, that's all the Board is going to approve. Whether or not it is safe ground to say that or not is an issue but the majority of' the Board wants to hold for that. Whether that property ever gets develooed to Woodberry Lane is up to the developer and n~t up to the Board. If it doesn't, the Board feels the 1,~00 foot is about as far as the Board can let it go, so condition ~ of Bill Hmurciak~s letter~ the Board would not elect to change. On condition ~I~ Paul suspected that the Board would ~efer to the engineer. Paul stated that before next meeting have absolutely pristine conditions, most of which are already there so that they can be read ~nto the record and the Board can adopt it. Erich stated that he could see ~o p~oblem with that. George Perna stated that from his prospective he wanted to make sure that a condition would be place~ in zhe decision to prevent rloodi~'~g. Paul stated that was a good point and the Board was going to cr'eate the issue raised in Biil~s letter, paca~raph £, and place a condition that identifies that and requires some additional interaction so that everyone is comfortable. Erich stated that there was already a condition stating that the Board wanted additional drainage c,atculations. Tom Neve spoke to the Boal-d stating that this was the most engineered project in New England and that there were aOditional sources available to the Board. Conservation Commission has gone over this project on three separate occassions, D.E.~.E. has gone over this project on two separate occassions, an outside consultant was hired by the Conservation Commission to add input on the calculations~ I.E.P. prepared the calculations. Tom stated that he had reviewed the calculations. The calculations to this point have not been an issue. Paul Hedstrom asked what is the oosture of this subdivision and conservation commission. Tom stated that Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditioos that had issues unrelated to drainage and they are the ones more apt to be concerned aOout storm damage, flooding, wetlands impacts related to flooding. Paul Hedstrom asked Tom if he was s~ill in appeals with that. Tom said yes but it is in appeals on a specific order of conditions and that he was only sugges;ing to the Board that drainage has been analysied to the enth degree and it seems like the people involved are satisfied with the drainage. Paul Hedstrom asked if the pla? was recorded. M~ . Spicer stated that it Paul asked how do you null that with the position that the subdivision in appeal. Mr. Spicer stated that they had appealled a decision of the Planning Board. Paul stated that the applicant created the confusing situation. You appeal the decision on the one hand, you took the position that you have an approved plan~ so that our nullity of identifying 22 conditions late should have been just that - nui!i{y, bLit~ instead of allowing the annullity, you a~pealed from that so, you have plans in the registry and the decision with an appeal on it and in the appeal you incorporate this issue, but still went ahead and recorded the plan, so he suggested the reasons the Board was going through this , in his judgement, silly exercise, is because the applicant went on a parrellet course. You have a recorded plan now. so the Board ~s going to put conditions on the recorded plan. Paul also said ke knows the conditions would not be effecteO against the applicant's moctagee, but they are going to be effective against Abbott Realt,/ Trust and that the Board is very distrubed that the applicant chcse this parrellel course. The Board has issues with the app!icant~ the app]ica,~t nas issues with the Board. If there are conditions over which this is legiminately in court~ we should be sitting down rry~ng tm see if there are common grounds om the conditions. The Board should not ~ave to defensively, on a motion of the Board, have to put conditions on th~s alleged defaulted approval. Paul stated that the plans should not have been recorded and that he had no interest in talking to Mr. Spicer. Paul told Mr. Spicer to talk to Town Counsel and then they would meet instantly, with Town Counsel. Mr. Spicer said that if' Town Counsel would return his calls then they could get together. Paul said that he would talk to Town Counsel in the morning. Paul stated that the Board was not at alt happy that the opportunity of dialogue was s!ammec~ in the Board's face, that the dialogue with the Planner, that the issue of working this through was slammed in the Board's face by a default appeal, now the process continues and the Board is perfectly willing to talk but the Board is firm in its convictions that the Board is goi~ag to adopt conditions on this plan. Mr. Spicer wanteO to address Paul's amparent opinion that what the he did was protect his client and if your in a situation to protect your client, you do it. Mr. Spicer stated that because the Board 'is proporting to take some action which affects the applicant's ei-operty and if the applicant lets 20 days go by without an appeal, the Board (he felt) would be taking the position that was an effective decision regardless of the deemed aporoved plan. Paul Hedstrom stated that his appeal of the decision that he deemed an annullity (in his judgement) weakened his position that this is a valid approved plan and you cannot have it both ways. Mr. Spicer asked the court to determine and that he would rather be in that position then be in the position) of explaining to the court why he let an appeal period go by on something that preports to be a decision effecting his clients property. Paul told Mr. Spicer that the open-en~ed statutary time period started and ended and that he knows what the circumstances with ending here are. It just created a very bad environment in which we are suppose to cooperatively work to resovle our differences. Mr. Spicer stated that he never intended to convey to the Board that by recording plans protected themselves never ending foreclosing dialogue and discussion with the Board about negoiating various conditions attached to the plan and that he is still willing to talk. Mr. Spicer said that was one of the reasons he was trying to get ahold of someone before the meeting to make that clear to the Board. He didn't think that the Board has to feel that it's in a position where it has to slap some conditions back on under Section 8iW. Paul told Mr. Spicer his point was made. Paul asked if anyone else had anything to say~ from the audience. Jim Burke, Abbott Street abutter, wanted to know the status of the original plan because if thence is still some iitigation on the plan that was filed the first time, there was a three-fold parrallel effort. Mr. Spicer stated that it was dismissed. Scott Stocking stated that the Planning Board was not sued the first time, they sued Conservation. John Simons recollected that the courts ultimately decided in favor of the Consrvation Commission against the applicant in terms of the Conservation issues which would force the plans to be changed. Erich Nitzsche stated that was why the applicant filed a modification. Tom Neve thought that the original plan was approved by the Planning Board and abutters appealed. Ben Osgood~ Jr. said there were two cases; one was dismissed because the person who appeale~ did no~ show up to the hearing, the o'ther case was involving the driveway easement on Woodberry Cane and he thought it was still in appeal. Spicer stated he believed it was found in favor of the abutters. Paul spoke to Mr. Burke saying that the real subject matter here is there is a seriously re-designed, re~-thoughtout, plan, decision or not, (that he was fam~lular with). Paul thought that there is an attempt to abandon the original Abbott Village Plan and deal with what's before the Board. Mr. Burke said he hadn't heard the applciant say that. Erich Nitzsche said that Conservation ~enieo with the Order of Conditions on the ~clginal subdivision plans~ that ~as upheld in oourt. As he recalls~ the applicant filed the revised subdivision as a modification. Paul said there was no point in dwelling on the or. iginat plan. ~im Burke stated that the applicant ~as not sued by the abutters, but the Planning Board was. Paul asked for a motion. Mr. Spicer suggested that the Board make a motion to continue this matter so that Town Conusel can meet to resolve some of the issues prior to adding another legal layer ~o what is going on. He felt it would be in everyones best interest. Jim Burke said t~at if any changes made to that plan will it then become open for public hearing again. Paul said that this was the public hearing for modification to that plan. There are Public Works modifications for the plan. Mr. Spicer stated that if the Board was going to adopt modifications to the plan, then the applicant be given sn opportunity to address those conditions. Paul Hedstrom stated that it was the Board intent to adopt the 22 conditions that are the subject of the existing suit, as modified by, what we hear tonight, incorporating, by reference, have the record of the night of that decision read ~n this record so that we have all the factural background to it~ were going to suppliment those ~ conditions by the issues identified by ~he Board of Public Works, direct the Planner to produce a draft decision for next meeting which adpots these issues, at least loc discussion because the Board is very concerned about the distance of Thistle Road, at least for discussion, such that it would be between ~ and B? conditions that will be read in as a decision on the modification at the next meeting. George Perna said he makes that motion. Erich asked if it w~s a motion to close the public hearing? Paul thought that the public hearing ~houid be kept opened so that if the Board membe~-s h~ve separate issues as the decision is read at the next meeting at least it can be discussed if the hearing is left opened. John Simons commented further by saying that part of the reasons the Board reacted in this situation is that the Board fe~ls they have been had a little bit, and that in this situation the Board was being told one set of things and as it turned out as a result of the decision, to say it was null and void that ~n fact it appears the applicant is going in a totally different path which does not make the Board feel very good. Mr. Spicer felt that the Board should understand that when somebody filed an appeal, they are protecting their own rights and when they say they are filing this a~oeal but want to still come and talk to the Board about it as he thought. Scott interruoted by saying that it was not the appeal they were talkinq about. Mr. Spicer stated that the appeal then on the recording of the plan. Paul Hedstrom said "BINGO" Erich Nitzsche said that was the key issue. Paul Hedstrom stated that as far as the Board was concerned the attorney suggestion to not adopt the conditions was falling on deaf ears. The Board is not going to allow the "approved plan" sit out there condition free. The Board is going to adopt the appropriate conditions at the next meeting for whatever reasons the Board deems appropriate and that it has been made clear ~hat the Board's hand was forced on that and that he knew that the Board would be in dialogue over this whether in annul or appeal is up to the applicant. The Board is not going to close their ears to discussing the problems but it ~s articifical to suggest that the Board not adopt the conditions on the plan that is filed in the Registry. Mc. Spicer did not understand an attitude 'that the Board is going to be upset about the applicant protecting his rights when they're saying they are going to talk to the Board about it and then to say that the Board is going to adopt conditions new because the Board worst ahead and did that is counter- productive to getting the ma~ter resovled. Paul asked why counter productive? What is the applicant intent with the plan that is filed in the Registry? Mr. Spicer stated that they were willing to talk to the Board about imposing certain conditions on that plan and the Board understands that there are certain conditions as with most pi. ars certain conditions that the applicant can live with and certain conditions that were talked about and felt that he couldn't live with. Paul Hedstrom stated that ~e thought the Board's intent is to stop talking with the applicant after the conditions are put on that plan that the Board deems appropriate. Mr. Spicer- stated that he hoped the Board understood that once that was done the applicant of course has to protect himself at the appeal in a equal position to talk. The motion by George Perna was seconded by Erich Nitzsche to continue the public hearing and direct a draft decision to be adopted to be ~repared so the Board can adopt at the close of the nearing at the next metting. The vote was unanimous. 3ecad Place II - I~oUificatior~ John Simons read the legal notice to eden the public hearing. Scott Stocking, Town Planner stated that there issues to be withdrawn. MOTION: By John Simons to continue the public hearing for 15 minutes SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous of those present. lot F Fla~3~_ Oj-~.se - Site Plan Review John Simons read the legal notice to open the public hearing. John also read a letter from the ap~ticar, t'to withdraw the application without prejudice. MOTION: BY Erich Nitzsche to ¢~= ~ a_:~o,, the request for withdrawal without prejudice. SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous cf' those present. Material Installations John Simons read a letter from James Bourgeois askinq the Board to accept a withdrawal without prejudice. MOTION: By George Pecna to acceot the request for withdrawal without prejudice. SECONDL Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Kenics Site Plan Review John Simons read a letter from James Bourgeois requesting to withdrawl the application on Kenics Site Plan, without prejudice. MOTION: By John Simons to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. SECOND: Erich Nitzsche VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Jerad Place II - Modification Tom Neve, Thomas E. Neve Associates spoke to the Board stating that Conservation wanted a ~5' nu cur buffe~ zone ar'ound ail wetland a~-eas. The common driveways have been moved due to the Conservation's Order of Conditions. Conservation asked to minimize wetland crossing. John Simons stated that the biggest issue was the wetland crossing. -[om Neve spoke stating ~hat Conservation hmd asked him to cross at one point, he changed ti~e plans at their request and the Conservation denied them. Tom has spoken with B~l! ~urciak. regarding the width of the roadway. Tom stated that a ~6 foot wiOe road should be acceptable, the regulations call fo,- ~' wide. Paul Hedstrom told Tom to keep working with Bill Hmurciak regarding the roadway. MOTION: By George Perna to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. A__pproval Not Required Form A Candlestick Road - Chan~.nq MOTION: By George Perna to accept the plans subject to taking Parcel B,C, D and A off the plans and just show the old lot line. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Forest Street - Creatinq a Lot MOTION: By George Perna to approve the Form A Plan. SECOND: John Simons VOTE: Unanimous of those present. Jeffre~ Place - Silo' Plans Plans to be reviewed by the Town Planner, Scott Stocking and Bill Hmurc~ak of D.P.W. The plans are to be signed at May 86, 1988 meeting. ~0.~.. Far~_2..~i. qn Plans The Planning Board signed the pla~cs for Broo~ Farm. MOTION: By John Simons to adjourn the meeting. SECOND: George Perna VOTE: Unanimous of those present. The meeting adjourned at approximately ll:q5 p.m. Paul A. Hedstrom, Chairman