Planning Board minutes 1989-06-26

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of June 26, 1989 2 the plan as submitted. Mr. Sorensen noted that if this plan is denied, it is possible the next proposal could be a plan with no waivers; with a 30 foot roadway, a sidewalk on both sides, with development close to the wetlands and no access to the back lands. He added that the Board should be trying to get the best possible subdivision plan. Mr. Williams proposed that the Board require a 10 foot walking easement along the existing Town of Lexington sewer line where it crosses Lot 6. The other Board members declined to support the addition of that condition. In response to questions from Mr. Williams and Mr. Sorensen as to why the plan had been accepted in the first place, Mrs. Klauminzer noted that according to the Development Regulations, the 14 day review period is used to determine whether the submission is complete, not whether what has been filed is accurate. She added that the remainder of the review period is used, not only by the Planning Board but by other Town departments that regulate the con- struction of subdivisions, to determine whether the plans submitted are accurate and reflect existing conditions in the field. She thought the subdivision should be disapproved, as submitted, because the plans are not accurate. Applicant Robert Cataldo was granted permission to ask a procedural question, as to whether he could request an extension of time to submit whatever they require as corrected documents , or whether he should withdraw and file a new application for subdivision approval, with corrected plans that show existing field conditions. Mrs. Uhrig noted that the public hearing had been held on the definitive plan previously filed, and she did not see how the decision could be based on new information received after the hearings have been held. She also believed that the proper way to proceed at this time would be for the applicant to withdraw and resubmit the application with the correct information. On the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 3-2 (with Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Williams voting in negative) to disapprove the- definitive plan, for the reasons stated in the draft Certificate of Action, (disapproving the plan) dated June 29, 1989. Mrs. Wood, noted and it was generally agreed, that the review of the resubmitted definitive plan probably would not require the full 90 days review. Mr. Cataldo presented, and the Board accepted, a written request asking that he be permitted to withdraw the definitive plan and application for approval of the Special Permit with Site Plan Review for a conventional subdivision entitled "Pheasant Brook II", without prejudice. He stated the new submission will be the same subdivision plan now before the Board, with corrected drawings, showing existing field conditions . In response to the request from Mr. Cataldo, on the motion of Mrs. Wood, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted 3-0-2 (Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Williams abstained) that in light of the applicant's offer to withdraw his definitive subdivision plan entitled Pheasant Brook II, filed April 3, 1989, the Planning Board rescinds its vote, just taken, disapproving the definitive plan.