Laserfiche WebLink
'Conservation commission Page <br /> `our <br /> 'Meeting f June 27 1984 <br /> had been issued for Cottage #2 and if so, when. Ms . Collins <br /> - 'said that the Order of Conditions was issued on December 16, <br /> 1983, He asked if he were an abutter to that and said that he <br /> had not received any notification of changes . Ms . Collins did <br /> say that he was not an . <br /> abutter. That he was not direct abutter. <br /> She said that the Commission i <br /> this particular instance , when <br /> the determination was filed, requested that a certain radius of <br /> abutter be notified. #25 stated that his property was very close <br /> to #2. Ms . Collins said that if the property in question were <br /> within 300' , he would have received notific tion. Said owner <br /> stated that he was sure his property was within Soo' and <br /> Collins said that was why he had received notification@ He said <br /> he had NOT received notification. Ms . Collins said that under <br /> the old section it was necessary to notify the abutters and that <br /> this time the Commission had sepcifically requested that abutters <br /> within a 3001 radius be notified. #25 asked the definition of <br /> 't a.butt er" mentioning that cottage #2 was right next door to his lot; <br /> that it is the very next cottage . Ms. Collins said that she had <br /> gotten the abutters list from New sabury and From town records <br /> and it was a direct abutter at that time . Ms . Dardano asked if it <br /> were a direct abutter according to the Assessors Office , Ms , Collins <br /> said that they used New seabury's List and the town records . March <br /> ardno said, "we don' t here . we use the Assessors Office records" . <br /> The owner of cottage #25 stated that he was very surprised to find <br /> i out that permission had been granted for changes and that he had <br /> never been notified. Mr. Richard Nahigian of 4 Maushop Village <br /> spoke at this time and pointing tothe map, said, "This is my <br /> cottage here and I was never notified and I'm an abutter" . #25 <br /> asked <br /> 'f the map were drawn t scale . Ms . Collins said that t <br /> was. She also said that it is the Notice of Intent that wasb- <br /> m .tted which does not require separate notification abutters <br /> rather it is published in the newspapers under a Full Notice of <br /> Intent. She said that when you are doing a determination which is <br /> less that a Full Notice of Intent, you are required under the Town <br /> by-law, no longer under the State law, but under the Townby-law, <br /> t send out specific notification. This is determinations the <br /> previous action was filed under a Notice of Intent. Ms . Dardano <br /> explained that Ms . Collins was appearing before the Commission to <br /> establish whether or not it is necessary to file . she also said <br /> that the Commission would rake that decision and thea get on to <br /> the abutters . <br /> Ir. Nahigian -thea asked, ' Now many feet do you propose to move <br /> back cottage #l"? Ms . Collins replied, 'The front of the cottage <br /> is to be set back 3o' from where it exists today as requested by <br /> the Commission,' . It was asked by Mr. Nahigian if the cottage were <br /> to be moved over. Ms , Collins stated that it had to be moved over. <br /> The next question was "how many feet over"'? Ms e Collins replied <br /> that she didn' t have a. scale with her' but if anyone had' a ruler, <br /> it could be measured. s. Collins continued, "The Reamn f the <br /> do a -�- <br /> cesaran <br />� <br /> way this is oriented �.s because f then � <br /> cause the connections are already in the ground" * The owner of #25 <br />