2021-03-24-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of March 24, 2021 updated at the definitive stage. Would you object to a condition that required you meet the town standards for the water service. No. Robert Peters moved that the Planning Board approve the preliminary plan for 10 Maguire Road with three conditions (1) to upgrade the water service to meet town standards, (2) to change the zoning table to reflect this is in the CM District and not the C-HIP District, and (3) make it clear that 3 Maguire Road would be excluded from the subdivision. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Robert Peters – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech - yes). MOTION PASSED Rangeway Extension Definitive Subdivision-Building Permit Request, Covenant, Surety, Modification: Mr. Peters was recused from the Rangeway discussion since he was an abutter to this property. Mr. Gilgun, Attorney and the prospective buyers were present. Mr. Gilgun explained that there were three problems which would not allow the sale of the property to go forward:  The covenant would not allow the property to be sold prior to the completion of infrastructure improvements to serve the property;  The need for consent from the Board to get a conditional building permit issued subject to the completion of the infrastructures as conveyed in the covenant; and  The plan had a Limit of Work (LOW) area and wanted clarification that landscaping beyond the LOW area in the rear yard would be allowed. Mr. Gilgun said they would give notice to the abutters. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said to change the wording of the covenant was no problem. The request to get the conditional building permit would be contrary to State law and the Planning Board had no power to do that, but the applicant could change the surety form to allow the issuance of a building permit. The third matter issue was any changing to the landscape on the lot would require no change to the stormwater runoff into that drainage system in a negative way.  Mr. Schanbacher said this seemed to be somewhat reasonable and was open to other discussion.  Ms. Thompson was asking for clarification on the history and more discussion on this matter. The proposed buyer Mr. Corey explained the LOW line would cut the lot in half and he would like to provide some yard for a potential buyer and would like to do some grading and clearing of trees to create a more attractive landscape. If we couldn’t provide more green space it would be difficult to sell. Ms. Thompson asked why this wasn’t challenged earlier. Would this change impact any abutters? Mr. Corey said he did not believe so. Bob Creech moved that the Planning Board authorize the chair to execute any documents necessary to make the covenant for Rangeway extension conform to section 81U. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-0-0 (Roll Call: Melanie Thompson – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Charles Hornig – yes; Robert Creech – yes). MOTION PASSED