Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Appeals Minutes—August 11, 1999 3 <br /> 44 <br /> Town road. AttorneyCreedon claimed that anon the Variances would not derogate <br /> r <br /> granting g <br /> from the intent of the By--laws and would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. <br /> Attorney Creedon submitted a map showing that all the lots in the immediate area have <br /> been developed. He requested that the Board grant the Variances in order to build <br /> single-family homes on the subject lots. Attorney Creedon stated that all other <br /> requirements,with the exception of frontage requirement, would be met. <br /> r <br /> ;I <br /> Attorney Creedon referred to the applicant's Appeal of the Building Cornnaissioner's <br /> decision to deny building permits. He read the Building Commissioner's letter dated July <br /> 1, 1999 which states: "The parcels s obtain their frontage from River Road which is listed <br /> p g ,. <br /> as a road in the town and their access to Easy way, a paved road, meets the requirements <br /> of 174-32". ji <br /> Attorney Creedon stated that the plan in the Mashpee Planning Department has a ' <br /> handwritten notation that the subject lots are unbuildable. He submitted a certified copy <br /> of the plan as recorded in the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds which does not have <br /> the notation restricting the development of the lots. <br /> s � <br /> Mr. Dorgan questioned if River Road is an acceptable road. Mr. Hauck said that because <br /> t <br /> one portion of River Road is paved and developed with houses, it gives credence to River t <br /> Road being an accepted road. <br /> Mr. Regan questioned if it is a private road. Mr. wheeler checked and confirmed that <br /> River Road is a town-owned road. <br /> Mr. Govoni referred to the memo from the Board Secretary regarding her conversation <br /> with the Town Planner, Tom Fudala. Mr. Clovoni suggested that the original linen plan in :. <br /> Boston Land Court be researched as to whether or not it contains the handwritten notation <br /> that the lots are unbuildable. Attorney Creedon produced a copy of the Boston Land r r <br /> Court plan that shows the handwritten notation, "not a separate building lot", on the <br /> subject lots, as well as on 24 East way which has been developed. <br /> F_p <br /> Mr. Dorgan questioned where the pavement ends. An abutter, Conine Wickel, stated that 4f <br /> g q <br /> the pavement stops in front of her house at 111 River Road. She questioned how the <br /> p p <br /> subject lots will be accessed. <br /> Mr. Hauck stated that in 1973, when the subdivision was approved, frontage for the <br /> subject lots may have been obtained from River Road but that the lots would be accessed Y` <br /> from East Way. He also explained the reason for the easements on the map. <br /> Mr.Nelson stated that there is a difference between a"petition"plan and a"decree"plan. ��. <br /> The petition plan is the linen document, which could have information on it that the judge + '''� <br /> did not include on the decree plan. <br /> _!u <br />