2013-11-21-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

is approved, could lead to the development of four lots and the destruction of the woodlands on the parcel in question as well as the historic home. (Ms. Fenollosa did not believe a Demolition permit had been applied for to date.) Mr. Canale updated the Committee on the status of the Planning Boards review of the proposal. He said the Planning Board staff had seen site plan sketches, but that the developer had not yet met with the Planning Board. He said the Board has not taken a position on a By-Right Plan or special permit. He noted that the Board has received emails from abutters and neighbors. He added that the fact that the Hennessey parcel is not on the Conservation Commissions list of lands of conservation interest does not make a difference to the Planning Board since worthy parcels come up for acquisition on their own timeframe. He added, however, that the parcel had to have a wide public benefit, not just a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Castagnozzi responded here that he felt that the parcel did have a wider benefit to the Town just as every conservation parcel does, and that as the neighborhood changed, the parcel would continue to benefit the Town. He noted the proximity of the parcel to the Paint Mine conservation area, and the NSTAR power line, which he said functions as a wildlife corridor. It is common he added to see deer bed down on the parcel in question. Mr. Canale said he had walked the parcel, and that it was lovely. He noted that from a connectivity standpoint, however, that the acquisition would be enhanced by a public trail easement out to Demar Road. (There is apparently an existing trail from Demar to the Hennessey land.) Steven Van Evera, the owner of 24 Demar Road offered later in the meeting to put a public trail easement on his lot (Lot 7) to increase the access to the Hennessey field. (It was never made clear if this is the location of the current trail.) Mr. Wolk noted that the Conservation Commission had commented on the development of the lot under agreement. He said the Commission did not feel it could recommend the acquisition of the lot, but had (in a letter dated October 24, 2013) voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Board that the Board seek a 100 buffer from the Hennessey Field conservation area and place a trail easement on the property. Mr. Cohen noted that if the deal with the developer does fall through, the neighborhood might ask the owner to donate the property to the Town and realize the tax benefits from the gift. The CPC discussed the proposal at length with the applicant, and generally concluded the following: a)The timing on the application on the acquisition prevented the CPC from acting on the proposal at this time, since the property was under agreement with a developer. b)Mr. Castagnozzi and the neighbors needed to wait until the agreement between the owner and the developer expired before pursuing Town funding for the parcel. c)The CPC was unable to vote on any proposal without an appraisal (two, in fact, per CPC policy), and that it might be worth the neighbors chipping in for such an appraisal if the homeowner were willing to grant permission. d)The neighborhood should try negotiating with the developer if the development of the parcel ultimately received Planning Board approval. e)It would be worth meeting with the Conservation Commission in the short term to further discuss the acquisition, since the ConsCom could expedite the proposal and request CPC funds for an appraisal if it endorsed the project. 4