1974-05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 May 7, 1974 (continued) Page 3 A letter dated May 7 was received from the Selectmen requesting that the Board of Appeals delay granting approval of a permit because there were too many unanswered questions regarding the development of the property. All parties concerned agreed to a continuance Notices were mailed to all who had received notices Later it was agreed to continue it to May 28, 1974 been notified of the hearing for May 7 and May 21 ued hearing date of May 28, 1974. May 28, 1974 of the hearing to May 21. of the May 7 hearing. at 7:30 P.M. All who had were notified of the contin- On May 28, 1974 the Board gave further consideration to the subject of the petition, the evidence presented by the petitioner and others in open public meeting. Mr. Conroy represented the petitioner. Mr. Lenox, Mr. Colangelo, Mr. Keshian, Mr. Nylander and Mr. Ray Cone, chief architect for Tektronix, were all present. The same Board members were present: G.C.Sheldon, G.P.Wadsworth, R.M.Gary, H.W.Reed and Robert Cataldo. Another letter was received from the Town Engineer (dated May 24, 1974) with five comments for the Board's consideration. Mr. Conroy stated that all requirements would be complied with including the assumption of any extra cost to the town in making sewer and water connections. The Board of Selectmen wrote a letter to the Board of Appeals dated May ' 28, 1974 stating that the questions were still unresolved and they feel that the Town would be better served if the petition were withdrawn in order to allow sufficient time for the development of an overall plan for the complete area and the settlement of the Hinchey Road question. As a result of all the above the Board voted in favor of the following findings: Since the Hinchey Road problem has not been legally resolved and would be a significant factor in the development of the total area, in the Board's opinion, it would be unwise to approve the first lot in the development with- out proper planning for the additional lots. Therefore, in the opinion of the Board, the plan presented was not a sound plan. The site plan review and find- ing and determination showed that it might tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. A satisfactory plan should be submitted for the entire area owned by the applicant in order to be certain that Hinchey Rd. and problems of access and water and sewer service connections are satisfactorily solved. The Board voted unanimously to give the petitioner an opportunity to with- draw the petition. If the petitioner fails to withdraw the petition it is denied. (Only Mr. Sheldon expressed a willingness to grant the petition.) The Board attached the latest letters from the Board of Selectmen and the Town En- gineer to the record in the file folder. On May 30, 1974 the petition was withdrawn by The 115 Kendall Corporation and Tektronix, Inc., by their attorney, Frederick J. Conroy, by letter. Evelyn F. Cole, Clerk