Laserfiche WebLink
pay for the connection so that New seabury wouldn't have that burden. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that it was a seven-year old promise at this point. <br /> Mr. Grotzke responded that it wasn't actually seven because none of <br /> these were being done. There were no plans Intended and some of these <br /> cottages were meant to remain under their own original leach pits and <br /> septic systems. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that his concern it has already been a long time. What <br /> he learned today is that they are taking a small lot with four little <br /> bedrooms that are no bigger 91 x g' or g' x 121 on one bathroom. You are <br /> putting a three or four bedroom Taj Mahal that is maybe the same size <br /> footprint but it is three or four stories high. <br /> Mr. Darrington interjected that it wasn't even the same size footprint. <br /> Mr, Santos felt that that was a big concern to the board members and the <br /> impact to the environment. It will change it dramatically. It is also on of <br /> these things that this plan had already been approved, <br /> Mr. Sall agreed, but he didn't think they could back out of it. <br /> Mr. Santos asked if the three-year limit was coning up or not. <br /> Mr. Harrington responded that they granted an extension until 2004 <br /> 'because they had done it for everyone else. <br /> Mr. Santos re-iterated that they couldn't rescind the original approval, <br /> Mr. Ball concurred that they were locked in to the original approval, which <br /> was the same as the other one. <br /> Mr. Harrington added that they didn't have to approve this because they <br /> are requesting variances, The board members could go back to the 1999 <br /> plan and make them stay to the 1999 plan. That was the plan that was <br /> approved and extended. This is total separate application because they <br /> are requesting different variances. Mr, Grotzke was using maximum <br /> feasible compliance. He can do that because it isn't new construction and <br /> there is an existing structure there. But, this was new application. This <br /> was not under the same application as the 1999 plan. The 1993 plan was <br /> only for the existing cottage itself. This plan they had in front of them <br /> right now was for the owner's new foundation plan and that was what Mr. <br /> Grotzle's cover letter says. They didn't have to allover this because he was <br /> requesting a variance. If they didn't allow the variance they were not <br /> 1 <br />