Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING BOARD <br /> Town of Mashpee <br /> 'MINUTES OF THE' MEETING of THE PLANNING BOARD <br /> DATE : 7 November 1979 <br /> TIME : 7 : 30- P.M. <br /> MEMBERS PRESENT.- Earle M. Mars ters , Donald Blakeman, Richard Terry, <br /> Richardson Jonas <br /> ALSO PRESENT: Town Counsel, Mr. Joseph Re'ardon, Mr. Ph'i'l'z�..Holm 'e-s_..._. <br /> Town Counsel appears tonight at request of Planning Board on two counts ; <br /> first being Mr. John Drew"s Definitive Plan of subdivision off Meeting- <br /> house road. Both Mr. Reardon and Mrs . Mars ters are of the opinion ' that <br /> a wrong date was put on cross-reference card. Mr, Reardon asked if plans <br /> were signed prior to covenant being received and Mr. bars ters informed <br /> him that the Planning Board not only insists upon the road covenant , but <br /> also a proof of ownership covenant before a plan can be signed for a <br /> cluster. ' Mr. Reardon states absent any proof to the contrary, Planning <br /> Board' s position should be that this plan' has never received final approval <br /> If he desires approval now, he would have to re--advertise and go through <br /> a formal hearing. He would be bound by zoning if there has been a change ,, <br /> Mr . Marsters asked for other suggestion, objections or recommendations and <br /> Mr, Philip Holmes ? Town Engineer, states that- he 'has another problem which <br /> s equally as big as the zoning problem'; in the meantime the Town of Mashpee <br /> ,,as installed a septic - disposal facility at the northerly end of the solid <br /> ■ <br /> waste disposal and he can' t put any residential wells in within l000feet <br /> of it. Mr, Drew is within the 1000ft range. Mr.. Holmes also states that <br /> Mr, Drew was notified any never did anything about it .. Mr., Mars tens stated <br /> that the Planning Board notified. him way back to come in and pick his plan <br /> Ups <br /> A letter was dictated to Mr. Drew stating that he would have to submit <br /> new subdivision .plans conforming to present zoning.. <br /> Second issue for Town Counsel " s r-econmendation was the three (3) lots in <br /> Sherwood Forest (L & L Associates , Inc. ) Mr. Reardon dropped - a memorandum <br /> off which has not yet been received (7NOV79) . The 'memorandum made refer- <br /> ence., in essence to the fact we have the, right under CH 41 to force a sub-- <br /> divider to set aside land for a green area for the purposes of light , open <br /> spaces , etc. but this reservation cannot exceed a three-year period as a <br /> maximum. We -have no right to enforce to impose in our rules and regulations <br /> any imposition on a subdivider, forcing him to make a p ark; the Chapter <br /> is quite specific on the limitation in the indoction rules and regs that <br /> we may not do this . (Plan of Sherwood Forest not brought in by Town Counsel) <br /> However, Mr. Mars tors s tated -that in .of f ect PB could eas ily do it; i .e . , <br /> they put a park area in and designate it, sell a couple of lots and then <br /> they are misrepresenting it to the people and someone could sue them. <br /> However, this is not the ca.s'e of Sherwood Forest . <br /> own Counsel advises the simpliest way for L & L Associates , Inc. , to <br /> properly reclaim these three lots is to comae in with a plan duplicating <br /> these three only without annotations and request approval not required. <br />