1974-05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The 115 Kendall Corp. and Tektronix, Inc. (continued) Page 2 A letter was received from the Planning Board with recommendations. Letters from the Engineering Department listed several comments and concerns about the plans for this project. Mr. Conroy stated that they had complied with all the engineering and Planning Board requirements in respect to this lot. He said that Hinchey Road would not be touched. He stated that he had a certificate of conditions from the Conservation Commission taking care of drainage. John Brucchi, Arthur Carota and Henry Siekman expressed their concerns. 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 of the hearing to May 21. Notices were mailed to all who had received notices of the May 7 hearing. Later it was agreed to continue it to May 28, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. All who had been notified of the hearing for May 7 and May 21 were notified of the continued hearing date of May 280 1974. (Notices are appended. See last page.) 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. 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that the questions were still unresolved and they feel that the Town would be better served if the petition were withdrawn in order to allow sufficient time for the development of an overall plan for the complete area and the settlement of the Hinchey Road question.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 without 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 finding 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 withdraw 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 attaches the latest letters from the Board of Selectmen and the Town Engineer for the record. On May 30, 1974 the petition was withdrawn by The 115 Kendall Corporation and Tektronix, Inc., by their attorney, Frederick J. Conroy, by letter.