TOWNSEND — A fledgling plan on Tyler Road was rejected by the Planning Board, due to missing components; the applicant’s representative was not thrilled by the decision.
Edward Bishop, acting on behalf of applicants Opal Leeds and Todd Rivers, protested the rejection at the Nov. 19 meeting, but only briefly. His outlook improved a bit when board member Jeff Peduzzi told him the board would approve the plan in short order once the corrections are made.
While reviewing the Approval Not Required (ANR) plan, the board discovered four items on the checklist that were missing from the plan. They were so simple that Peduzzi and fellow board member Gerald Coughlin did not understand why Bishop was upset.
The plan calls for the adjustment of property lines on a parcel along Fitchburg Road and Tyler Road to create eight lots. Each lot meets the frontage and size requirements, meaning the board will have little to review once the plan is resubmitted.
“It’ll take us about five minutes,” Peduzzi said.
The biggest source of consternation was the wording for the title of the plan. According to the board’s regulations, the title on the application must exactly match the one on the plan. In this case, the match was not 100 percent.
“Never seen this before,” Vice Chairman Nicholas Thalheimer remarked.
“Is it too specific?” Bishop asked. When he was told it was, he acquiesced. “Whatever you want us to do, we’ll do.”
Other missing components were page numbers and a U.S. Geodetic benchmark. Though the nearest benchmark (a measurement of elevation) was beyond the area of the plan, Peduzzi insisted it be included.
“I’ve been saying for years that that requirement should not be waived,” Peduzzi said. “The sole purpose of that benchmark is for emergency management.”
Bishop asked if he should just extrapolate the information from the existing benchmark and any topographical changes. Peduzzi said that would be acceptable.
The final source of concern was the designation of the property lines; the difference between the pre-existing lines and the proposed changes was too difficult to read on the map.
“Just make one line darker,” Chairman Stan Vladyka suggested.
Peduzzi motioned for the rejection of the plan and the board agreed unanimously, with the knowledge that a re-application with the requested editing would be accepted.
Because the plan was so close to approval, the board voted to reduce the re-application fee from $75 to $50 so long as it was resubmitted within the allotted six-week timespan. Bishop said he would deliver the new plan later in the week and asked to appear at the board’s next scheduled meeting, on Dec. 10.
Applicant Todd Rivers was in the audience and thanked the board after their decision, forestalling further questioning by Bishop.
“You just have to fix four things and it’ll be fine,” Peduzzi assured him.