1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals Minutes - February 14, 1990 Page 4. • Mr. Ferragamo: Yes, as an advisor and an aid to the Board. He was requested to correspond to the Zoning Board of Appeals the discussion that the Planning Board had regarding this application. But, by clarification, I think that the letter is not stating a true picture. The Planning Board advocates the approval of this Application provided the ZBA has the authority to approve it. That's the accurate statement. Mr. Makunas: Just to bring you up to date, Town Counsel, in a letter addressed to our Chairman, has indicated that we do have the authority. Mr. Ferragamo: That's fine. That's basically what the Assistant Town Planner was directed to do... was to state that we support the Application from a planning and public safety aspect and that the only note we make is that, as long as the variance process can grant the relief, we would advocate the issuance of the variance. We feel that there is an overwhelming benefit to public safety here. We feel that the Thompson's came before the Town and worked with a number of Town agencies to resolve a problem that, except through the cooperation of the applicant, the landowner, • the Town may never have the opportunity to resolve in terms of the general safety of Pimlico Pond Road. And with 60,000sf minimum lot size we fail to see the potential harm to the public here through water quality loss for four additional lots that might be granted when compared to the potential to better the safety not only of our community but also the surrounding communities that use Pimlico Pond Road in its current state. It seems to the Planning Board that as we initiated the whole conversation with the applicant, the paramount issue is to better the safety of Pimlico Pond Road at this point. 60,000 sf lot size as to opposed to 80,000 sf lot size... I think that the Board's position would be that there is a benefit to improving Pimlico Pond Road that far outweighs any detriment that four additional lots might create because they are 60,000 sf lots. The definitive plan still has not been filed or endorsed by the Planning Board because we cannot endorse it under the current situation and as such, issues of water quality would be looked into through our normal review process. So, if there is a detrimental impact here, it would be brought out through the water quality analysis. I think that what the applicant is seeking, and I could be wrong, is to see if this is a viable situation. Am I wrong about that? They still have to come in with a definitive plan .