Laserfiche WebLink
e <br /> Conservation Commission <br /> December 27, 1990 <br /> Page 7. <br /> Mr. York stated the last time he saw this the footprint was being argued over and <br /> has not seen it since. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated the aggregate footprint is smaller than the two current existing <br /> structures. They solved the problem of parking and the problem of placement of two <br /> separate septic systems. <br /> Mr. Besrosiers stated one of them was at -the edge of the bank and a real problem; <br /> this is so much better. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated he has all the information he needs on 1377 and 1378 with the <br /> exception of 'the actual combining of the lots. <br /> Mr. Grotzke advised he spoke with Tony Ferragamo on that who suggested th t' by having <br /> the building straddle an existing lot line in effect dissolves that lot lane from the <br /> separate lot issue point of view. Dissolving it f n al.l.y through another ANR plan <br /> through the Planning Board will be pursued to sage the future owner from being taxed <br /> on two separate lots. <br /> . Caffey added, or from being subdivided in the future into two separate condos. <br /> Mr. Buckley advised once the building perm is pulled, it will become one lot. <br /> . Coffey stated the hearing can be closed but no order of Conditions could be issued <br /> with the lot issue without some comment from Town Counsel and the Building Inspector <br /> or the issue becomes moot by submission of an ATTR. If closed the time clock starts <br /> ticking. <br /> Ms Lamik asked of they were two separately deeded lots Mr. tarot ke stated there was <br /> an ANR plan done dividing these lets into separate 50 ft. lots. He pointed to the lot <br /> lane they plan to dissolve by straddling the building. They intend to formally pursue <br /> another ANR plan for zoning and tax purposes. At land court it as registered as two <br /> separate lots. <br /> 4 <br /> Ms Lannik stated this should be reviewed by Town Counsel. <br /> Mfr. Coffey asked .if it was in motion to combine the two lots. fir. Grouke stated it <br /> has not been activated. That process is pending the outcome of the Commissionis <br /> decision. <br /> Mr. Besrosiers stated the commissionis outcome is favorable. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated the plan is agreed upon. The question he would like to see addressed <br /> is the combining of the lots. <br /> Mr. tarot ke asked if it could be conditioned on solving it front a legal administrative <br /> standpoint <br /> Mr. Coffey questioned whether it is appropriate for the commission to require them to <br /> combine the two lots. He asked of they could wait until January 10 for the Commission <br /> to obtain Town Counsel's opinion, <br /> Mr. Buckley stated he would obtain written opinion of the building inspector. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated if response from Town Counsel is received soon enough and if positive, <br /> it is a foregone conclusion that this project as shown will be accepted at the next <br /> meeting. However, 1379 is a separate lot; is there an adjusted plan to refer to <br />