4/5/2017 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 frontage and access was extinguished with the new layout, despite holding the right of access for at least 100 gears. _ 1n 1947 the Land Court registered the parcel where Pimlico fond Road bisected the property, Sandwich- otuit Road was noted as"public77 in 1947. Subsequent plans also showed the 40 foot Sandwich- otuit Road as public. when the new road was laid out, it crit off the historic roadway. Mr. Balarini inquired whether the 150 foot frontage would be net according to the original layout, but Mr, Fudala responded that it would not because it was not a subdivision street, a town road or a road to serve as adequate access to the property. Mr. Fudala stated that there was no layout of the road until 1960. Mr. Rowley quoted the subdivision control law. Mr. Rowley _ stated that in the third option, the road would need to be inspected to cheep the condition, for consideration. Mr. Fudala pointed out that subdivision regulations did not exist until 1965. Mr. Rowley stated that if the road existed before, it still needed to have adequate construction to be used. Having passed by the road, Mr. Rowley saw no evidence of a road at the end where the frontage would be needed. In his opinion it was not usable in its current form for Lot 15, without improvements. Mr. Rowley added that it was the Board"s decision to determine whether or not it met the criteria. Mr. Fudala referenced the aerial photo that showed part of the road zn 007 but no visible road could be seen on Cotuit load. Mr. Fudala added that the south end was being used as a driveway. Mr. Rowley referenced Mr. Sykes' plans showing lots 13, 14, 15. Lot. 15 had frontage on Pimlico Pond Load, more than what was required, and the same with lot 13. Lot 14 had no frontage and Mr. Rowley suggested the possibility of approving lots 13 and 15, with a notation that lot 14 was a separate nor-building lot until appropriate frontage was provided. Mr. Sykes reported that lot 14 was the lot being considered for sale. Mr. Balzarxni inquired about a subdivision road being added to lot 14 and Mr. Fudala responded that it could not be completed through the AIS R process. Mr. Rowley added that it could be done if lot 14 was advertised as a subdivision and the Planning Board could waive requirements as they saw fit, but it would require some construction.. Mr. Rowley described the steps by which Mr. Sykes would pursue Form C, life a regular subdivision hearing. The total acreage of the lot was over 5 acres, which Mr. Fudala stated would place it in the cluster subdivision regulations. Mr. Rowley suggested removal of 13 and 15, subdividing only lot 14. Mr, Sykes will discuss the issue further with his client. Mir, Fudala also pointed out the 40 foot layout abandoned but added to the property across the street, suggesting that the project proposer likely owned to the center of the road, but it was never seen by the Planning Board.. Mr. Rowley referenced the Land Court plan but the Land Court would not adjudicate the property because of the public right of way. Mr. Cummings inquired about purchasing lot 6. Where was further discussion regarding the old undefined road. Mr. Rowley noted that the Planning Board would have 21 days to make a decision.. Mr. Sykes indicated his preference to seek an ANR for lots 13 and 15 and will note on the plans that lot 14 was not a buildable lot until made compliant. 2