HomeMy WebLinkAbout1953-05-25M � 3
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
s --a
' Monday, May 25, 1953
Present: Adams, Grindle, Hathaway, Irwin, Potter, Ripley - Stevens.
Meeting opened at 7:45 o'clock.
Bills
Bills presented as follows: Louise M. Baker, secretarial service
May 4, 11, 18, 25 - $20.00, postage, hearings, $1.40 - $21.40. Adams
Press, publishing hearing May 18, 25, Universal -Construction Corp., $7.50.
Unanimously voted the bills be paid.
Hearin - Peacock Farms, Inc.
Public hearing held.at 8 o'clock on application for approval as a
subdivision the property of Peacock Farms, Inc. located as follows: on
Watertown street, Peacock Farms, Inc. Sec. 2, bounded on the north by Pea-
cock Farms, Inc., Sec. l., east by Gustave Larson, west by Arthur F. Mason,
south by Peacock Farms Inc. Present for the petitioner were Mr. Compton
and Mr. Nylander. Also present wore Mr. Mason; Mr. Zintz, Mrs. and Miss
Garoyan of Hillcrest Village; Mr. Larson. Mr'. Zintz raised a question as
to alleged exclusive rights of Lexington portion of Chenery Farm through
Arlington portion of Chenery Farm to Appleton street and would object to
' traffic from this new development using these rights of way. Was informed
that this was not in that area. There were no other objections. Moved by
Mr. Potter, seconded by Mr. Grindle, that the plan be approved subject to
approval by Town Engineer and Board of Health. So voted.
Robinson Hill
Mr. Newgent, Mr. Nylander, and Mr. George Davis, lawyer of Nutter,
McLennan & Fish, appeared with plans showing profiles of Robinson Hill for
which they wished tentative approval on a portion. Transcription of the
meeting is as follows:
"Mr. Davis: It seems the Board is more familiar with this project
than I am, also seems that it is more of a practical problem than a legal
one, yet sometimes legal counsel can view a matter from a different point
of view and thus attempt to find a solution for the differences which
appear. We have some profiles - so far as the powers of a Planning Board
are concerned, there is a question on installation of utilities, particu-
larly sewers. Ordinarily the installation of sewers is a town function
rather than a matter for the Planning Board. It is a matter of public con-
cern and therefore a town function. It is the privilege of a town to re-
quire the landowners to install sewers like any other utility. It would
seem, however, that if it is requiring a private owner to install sewers or
any other public utility, one of the essential things is the private owner
have the power to make the installation. In this case the developer is
somewhat remote from the present sewer. In order to bring it to Mass. Ave.
it would be necessary to do one of several things; one way to cons up Mass.
Ave. and right of way on Woodberry road. Would require laying sewers in
Mass. Ave. which is a public way and also laying sewers in Woodberry road
which is a private way and over which our clients have no right to lay
sewers. Therefore would involve right of eminent domain - therefore to '
require that the owner connect with the Mass. Ave. sewer would involve
action which from his point of view is impossible because he has not the
right to lay sewer in Mass. Ave. or make the necessary takings. That of
course is apart from the other problem as to whether it is a reasonable
requirement that he connect with the present terminus which is a distance
of some 1800 ft. There have been other developments which the Planning
Board has approved where the sewer has not been deemed a reasonable dis-
tance from the development and therefore is approved. Whether or not 1800
ft. as a legal matter is a reasonable distance is a clear question of law.
There has been suggested one or more alternatives. In order to lay before
the Board what new information we have it would be well to show the Boa7rd
this plan and those details which Mr. Nylander has prepared. The Board
has stipulated profiles.
Mr. Adams= Under what name are these plans being submitted?
Mr. Davis: These are related to the plan of the section that is -now
being presented for tentative approval by Lexington Construction Co., Inc.
Mr. Adams then requested Mr. Stevens to relate the latest informa-
tion he had on this company.
Mr. Stevens: Did you know that this company was dissolved and is no
longer in existence as of December 30th? What happens when you convey to ,
a corporation that is out of existence?
Mr. Davis; Under the circumstances the'title to property of the
corporation at the time lodges in the stockholders and then conveyance as
such would vest in the stockholders of the corporation. I was unaware of
this oondition.
(Mr. Newgent said he never knew about it = was never notified. Mr.
Stevens stated that a corporation was dissolved only after due notice and
that consequently he must have been notified. Mr. Newgent btated he and
his wife were the stockholders.)
Mr. Adams asked Mr. Nylander if a study of the profiles would show
that it would be difficult to connect with sewer. Mr. Nylander indicated
it could be done.
Mr. Davis: The owner would prefer to be permitted to make the de-
velopment with layout of the roads which may have been tentatively°approved.
The alternate requirement is that as each lot is sold the owner comply
with specifications which the Planning Board would specify in advance. If
that were done we suggest at the sale of any lot the Board would specify
what would meet with its requirements then Mr. Stevens (Rupert) could in-
stall the necessary facilities. Thinks it would be a hardship to the de-
velopment to be required to tie up from Mass. Ave. at a cost of some
$21,000 and there are problems which would have to be figured out before
that could be done. Alternative would be to specify connection with the '
sewer on Cedar st. which could be made possible if Mr. Newgent acquired
the Straw land and installed a pump necessary to meet this alternative.
If the Board has any other specifications which might not be within their
.2-
province to require details which they would like to specify, it would be
to the interest of everybody to specify these that insofar as possible
we could meet with the requirements in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Newgent knows the regulations as he has developed
before.
Mr. Newgent was asked if he owned the fee in Vocdberry road.
Said yes. He owns in fee and is giving rights to each person he sells
to. Was told by Town Counsel that he could not give rights of way unless
subdivision has been approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Bewgent wants
Woodberry road to be considered as a right of way only. Mr. Adams stated
that the feeling of the Board was that from a practical point of view as
soon as 50 homes are built they will use Woodberry road instead of the
official one. With regard to the report by Whitman & Howard previously
submitted by Mr. Newgent, he stated he got that from Mr. Jackson.
Meeting closed at 10 o'clock.
Thomas S. Grindle
' Clerk
I lmb