Laserfiche WebLink
Gerry DePalmer, 60 Bog River Bend. This proposed development takes place in back of his <br /> house. He bought in 15 and was show a plan by Mr, Thomas that assured him no construction <br /> could take place back. He was told this area would be for a pool, hot tub and tennis counts, a <br /> where the easement is. <br /> Before.he bought his property, he came to the Planing Board and was told no construction was <br /> allowed there. 2 proposals in back were defeated. <br /> In 2000 Fern Gully was built off the other-easement but he was assured by the Planning Board no <br /> _-more development could take place in this neighborhood.. <br /> Dennis said he was on the Board then and does not remember the Board saying that. <br /> Mr. DePalmer said three times they were told there would be no construction,why are we here? <br /> Tom explained that the prior development-Merganser- was denied by the Pl rmin Board, the <br /> applicant appealed it. The judge said that is an easement and intended for future road d can be <br /> used for road. The judge ovenmled the Planning.Board and made it clear-it.could be used as a <br /> road. All the approved,recorded plans in 1985 have that easement shown on the plan. <br /> The Planning Board also had n issue with the length of the cl de sac because it was over 800 <br /> f=t.. The judge remanded it back to the'Board for review and then the water District bought the <br /> Pperty• <br /> Karen Milroy, 40 Bog River Bend. She was also told no one could bind behind therm. Is the <br /> decision for Merganser pertinent to this development? why is that decision,relevant to this? <br /> Isn't the judges decision only relevant to that development? <br /> Tom said it is not. The decision is saying it was clearly intended for that easement to be a road <br /> and there should have been no question when Childs River was approved that it was intended to <br /> e a road. That set the rule that this can be used as a road'. <br /> This proposal is only for 2 lots, not the original 140 that were proposed, it could have been a lot <br /> gore. <br /> Russ Paache, 1 l 1 Bog River Bend: this neighborhood was a boon dogle by the developer. when <br /> the homeowners association took over the development, didn't they also take over the easement? <br /> Torn explained Mr. Thomas granted himself an easement a long time ago and it still stands. <br /> Friary Jane Paache asked ifthese new houses will be requizied to join this homeowners <br /> association? <br /> Dennis explained no one has to join an association unless it is in their deed. The Planing Board <br /> has no jurisdiction over that. This is jest.a subdivision plan, the Board does not have much say. <br /> Steve asked if the.Board can require any buffer zone between these new lots? <br /> Tom said there is nothing in coning that requires it. The Board has no legal right to require it. <br /> They can suggest to the developer that it,be done, voluntarily. <br /> Don asked, since the public hearing is open, does the Board have to act? <br /> Dick said the hearing can and should be Dept open and try to work on a resolution. <br /> There are also comments from Charlie Rowley and the Board of Health for the Board to review. <br /> Tom said the Board only-has 90 days to act and the clod is running. If the applicant does not <br /> shove up within those 90 days, they can deny it. <br /> Ibis. Paache said they have a long list of concerns, can they submit them to the Board. <br />