HANSON PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of the Executive Sessions of
October 24, 2001
Meeting Room A
Hanson Town Hall
Members Present: Philip Lindquist, Chairman
Gerard LeBlanc, Clerk
Joan DiLillo, Member
Gordon Coyle, Member
Members Absent: David Harris, Vice Chairman
Others Present: Town Planner Noreen O’Toole
Administrative Assistant Barbara Ferguson
Patricia Cantor, Kopelman & Paige, Town Counsel
Michael Perrault, P.M.P. Associates
I. CALL TO ORDER - 8:00 p.m.
Following a roll call vote in open session, the Board went into executive session with Attorney Patricia Cantor of Kopelman & Paige, Town Counsel, under Exception No. 3 of the state’s Open Meeting Law, to discuss Goscon, Inc. v. Philip R. Lindquist, et al, on the grounds that an open meeting might have a detrimental effect on its litigating position.
Goscon, Inc. has filed an appeal of the Board’s September 12, 2001 approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled 1248 and 1258 Whitman Street because it did not include approval of a requested waiver of Section 6.5.3 of the Hanson Planning Board Rules and Regulations, which requires street side lines to be rounded with a curve of not less than 25 feet radius. Goscon contends that whether by intent or by inadvertence, the Planning Board’s decision failed to grant said waiver, and without said waiver, the Zoning Enforcement Officer will be unable to certify that all lots are in fact legal lots in conformance with the Zoning Bylaw. The Board’s decision was filed with the Town Clerk’s office on September 20, 2001.
Attorney Cantor said that Goscon had requested a meeting with the Board at a meeting held earlier in the month with Town Planner Noreen O’Toole and Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Kennedy. She said that a representative from Winokur, Winokur, Serkey & Rosenberg of Plymouth, the applicant’s legal firm, and the property owner’s attorney, David Delaney of Plymouth, would both be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for 8:30 p.m., the purpose of which would be to ask the Board to address the requested waiver of Section 6.5.3 if the Board’s failure to do so in its decision was inadvertent.
Attorney Cantor said that she had reviewed the Board’s decision and the technical review of the subdivision plan done for the Board by Michael Perrault, P.E., of P.M.P. Associates which recommended denial of the requested waiver from Section 6.5.3.
In regard to the zoning issue created by the Board’s decision not to grant the waiver, Mr. Perrault pointed out that every review letter sent to the Planning Board stated that the developer should contact the Zoning Enforcement Officer for a written opinion on issues that relate to zoning. Copies of all the review letters were sent to the developer’s engineer, he said. The Board’s decision also states, he noted, that prior to endorsement of the plan, the developer must provide the Planning Board with a document signed by the Zoning Enforcement Officer indicating that all lots are legal lots in conformance with the town’s zoning bylaws.
In regard to the waiver request, Mr. Perrault noted that the board did vote to grant two waivers. Waivers are not a matter of right, he said, they are a matter of what the board feels is best for the community. Town Planner Noreen O’Toole told Mr. Perrault that the Board did discuss the Section 6.5.3 waiver request after he left the September 12, 2001 meeting and subsequently took a vote not to grant the waiver.
Attorney Cantor said that the question the developer would be asking at the 8:30 p.m. meeting is that the Board reconsider its waiver decision and negotiate some solution to the problem. She told the Board that its actions are defensible and that the facts show that the decision was not inadvertent. She advised the Board to have no communication with the developer or his attorney regarding the subdivision while the appeal is active. She suggested that the Board give the developer and his attorney some time to plead their case and that Noreen O’Toole monitor the meeting rather than a Board member.
Motion to go back into open session: Joan DiLillo
Second: Gordon Coyle
Vote: 4-0
II. SECOND CALL TO ORDER - 8:52 P.M.
Following the meeting with Goscon, the Board went back into executive session, reviewed the information presented during the open session, and decided in the interest of public safety not to reconsider its denial of the waiver request.
Motion not to settle the case at this time by agreeing to change the decision on the waiver: Gerard LeBlanc
Second: Gordon Coyle
Vote: 4-0
Motion to come out of executive session: Joan DiLillo
Second: Gordon Coyle
Vote: 4-0
| 
