My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/11/1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
>
9/11/1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2018 5:04:23 PM
Creation date
4/11/2018 11:03:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Civil Engineer, " which was filed with the Board of Appeals for <br /> appeal in the 1964-1 . This is that Plan. The Plan is entitled, <br /> "Cluster zoning Plan on a portion of New Seabury. . " and so forth. <br /> The date on it is January 16, 1964 . Um. . . (ahem) and in the <br /> Decision itself you will recall that I had argued to you last <br /> time that the Board made certain findings with regard to this <br /> Plan. And the Board said in its Decision, Um. . . "That the <br /> specific Plan presented to the Board respects the terrain, <br /> natural features of the land, provides for a well appeared good <br /> balance of dwelling unit densities and commercial facilities and <br /> amenities and is well coordinated with respect to. . . to contiguous <br /> properties and so forth. What is relevant to this particular <br /> appeal is the Notation contained on Section 5 . Section 5 in the <br /> 1964 Plan of Record clearly indicates that Section 5 is limited <br /> to twenty-five (25) units and a hundred eighty thousand (180, 000) <br /> square feet of commercial space. That limitation by the way is <br /> found on both sheets of the Plan which reference section 5 . And <br /> it is no small coincidence, I would suggest, that the Deed <br /> executed by New Seabury back in 1964 also limits Section 5 to <br /> twenty-five (25) dwelling units and a hundred eighty thousand <br /> (180, 000) square feet of commercial space. The reason that I <br /> emphatically suggest that this is relevant is because this <br /> particular Plan formed the basis of the Board' s filings in 1964 <br /> with the Cluster zoning as proposed in this Plan was <br /> substantially in compliance with the intent and purposes of the <br /> By-Law. And did not present any threat of substantial harm to <br /> the public good. . . <br /> The Chairman: Can I . . . can I just make a statement. <br /> Attorney Henchy: Sure. <br /> The Chairman: The Plan was really not germane to this <br /> Hearing. This Hearing is about the Building Inspector' s <br /> Decision. He has not issued a permit . And it ' s about can he <br /> overturn the Town Meeting. . .uh. . .he hasn' t—he' s not authorized <br /> to do that. And. . .uh. . .you know, we' ll accept it and—as part <br /> of the record, but as far as the Appeal that you came up with, <br /> it' s not germane to that Appeal . <br /> Attorney Henchy: Well . . . <br /> The Chairman: We 're not really looking for the Plan. <br /> Attorney Henchy: I . . . I respect to disagree for. . . for a good <br /> reason um—Mr. Govoni . we. . . the issue here is whether or not <br /> the 1995 Agreement . . . <br /> The Chairman: But that ' s not what you put in the Appeal . <br /> The Appeal . . .you appealed the Building Inspector' s Decision. <br /> There is nothing about Town Meeting, there' s nothing about the <br /> Deeds, there' s nothing about the way the Deeds were done. I <br /> mean, I think that can only take effect after twenty-five <br /> -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.