Laserfiche WebLink
To�n of C49.ff aghpre <br /> MAS <br /> HPEE. MA 02649 <br /> PLANNING BOARD MITES: 12/5/84 Page 2 <br /> A-I:t . George Lebher , representing John's Pond Association, asked to <br /> speak, He said he hopes the Board will consider that the road is not <br /> actually laced out and they have the right to turn it down for other <br /> reasons and he stated the Bailey vs Planning Board case which says the <br /> Board can requrest a public hearing as it is a modification to a definitive <br /> plan, He also stated the Triston Landing Case where you can turn a plan <br /> down for safety reasons : welfare of the people- , reasonable access and <br /> safety for police and fire vehicles , He felt it wasn't safe off Rte . 151 . <br /> Atty.. Lebherz next stated the Perry vs Planning Board case in Nantucket <br /> which sags you can turn it down if it doesn't show sufficient access <br /> to every lot . He also said. lot 42 is shown but it was a beach area, in the <br /> first subdivision plan approved , and this can't be done as the people <br /> have beach rights , <br /> Sr, Narr, president of the John's Pond Association, presented a petition <br /> with lot signatures of people who were opposed to the plan. <br /> Atty. G s sner said there was a note that lot 42 is "non-buildable" . He <br /> said the plan is an Approval Not Required and it was never shown on any <br /> other plan of John's Pond Estates except as vacant . He doesn' t think <br /> aesthetics is basis for turning down the plan of itself, He also said <br /> this plan is not the same as the Perm case , <br /> Mr. Dubin said. the Board hadn't looked closely at the Bailey case until <br /> tonight , and felt the Board should take it up with Town Counsel. Mr. <br /> Rowley said the Bailey plan involved dividing up open space into lots <br /> for building . As it had been open space on a subdivision plan, the court <br /> said the Board had the right to turn it down as an ANR and had to hear <br /> it as a definitive plan, Atty. Gessner said thatwasn't true in this case . <br /> _ Atty.. Lebherz said open space was a generic terra, the .intent is to leave <br /> open space for the people such as lot 42 . Atty. Gessner disagreed as they <br /> have noted lot 42 non-buildable . <br /> Mr . Dubin said he can't see the distinction as they are further subdividing <br /> a. plan that was already approve <br /> Atty. Lessner said the Board is required to treat "it as an ANR plan as <br /> it meets the criteria of that , Mr. Marsters stated the plan submitted <br /> didn't comply as it didn't show a covenant . Atty. Gsner asked if any <br /> plan has to show a covenant when it 's an Approval Not Required . Mr . <br /> Marsters said yes , that 's a requirement of the subdivision control la%4 <br /> and this is a new plan, <br />