Laserfiche WebLink
r r <br /> Mr.. Rowley questioned if the Plan met Zoning, r <br /> and whether " <br /> not it would re i <br /> ire a variance Appeals. <br /> o <br /> a.nce from the Board of Appeals. Mr. <br /> Rowley made reference to the Subdivision Rules and. Regulations �' <br /> which state the Planning ■ ref, <br /> Board cannot create lots that do not 4 <br /> conform to zoning, <br /> Mr. Baxter stated he has been advised by�' counsel to file the <br /> Plan as a subdivision � <br /> with a request for waiver, in order to et ' <br /> the Plan signed so that the e <br /> property can be transferred to the <br /> Buyer. <br /> Mr.. Rowley recommended the Board, investigate the <br /> circumstances of this submission, and to include a stipulation {,. <br /> a ! on. <br /> the Plan that it is not considered to be a building lot until <br /> such time as it meets requirements g qu ement s for frontage. <br /> The Assistant Town Planner provided the pertinent <br /> embers, page -5- Land U <br /> information to Board M <br /> Use Management. The <br /> Chairman read the following- "The Planning Board must hold aIs <br /> Public Hearing before determining whether a r frontage waiver ' ' <br /> � e i s in <br /> the public interest and not inconsistent with Subdivision r <br /> Control <br /> Law, . .Notat ion the frontage waiver granted b the Planning B <br /> should either be shown y g' oard <br /> on the Plan, or on a separate instrument <br /> attached to the Plan, with reference. , ,Unclear whether the <br /> Planning Board must allow the Board of Hea <br /> lth th when the only issue I:*F:.-j <br /> before the Planning Board is the frontage waiver. . .Recommend '` <br /> e d the 1{ <br /> Boards consider amending their rules and regulations, r <br /> f or a shorter review g providing <br /> e period when. a land owner is only seeking a. <br /> frontage waiver from the Planning Board. , may also want =i + <br /> specify a fee and. an information. . . <br /> to � <br /> P Y y relevant information. . . In determining <br /> whether to grant a frontage waiver, <br /> is g e Board should consider if the <br /> frontage is too narrow to permit easy access or if the <br /> r access � ,,• <br /> from the frontage, the building portion of the lot is <br /> (inaudible) too narrow or winding. . , if the lot appeared <br /> present no problem,em Pp t o <br /> p , indicated the Planning Board. would be acting <br /> i ;;• <br /> unreasonable, if n this particular case•, submitted a subdivision <br /> plan and the Board did not approve the Plan. 'r The Chairman f'A` � <br /> requested the Assistant Town Planner to provide copies for all � W" <br /> Board members. <br /> `, a <br /> At this point, the Chairman entertained a motion be mad <br /> schedule a Public Hearing. e to <br /> MOT 0N• Chance Reichel made a Motion to schedule a Public <br /> Hearing in this matter f or July F' 1'� u y 1, 1998, at 5.45 p.m. , which <br /> Lion was seconded by Dennis' Bal zarini and so voted unanimously , <br /> (This matter concluded -Unanimously <br /> - <br /> (This t �:5 5 p.m. � I:f <br /> Public Hearing-Anthony LaCava/Baxter & Nye <br /> Quashnet valley-'Modification of Definitive Plan <br /> JJ 40" <br /> The Chairman acknowledged ='w edged receipt of a written argument, as <br /> requested by the Planning Board, f rom Attorney Kevin Kirrane in �; :f <br /> the matter of the proposed extension of Snead Drive uashn �� ' ' ;1; <br /> P P � et <br /> ail <br />