Laserfiche WebLink
further stated by Mr. Burden that a common scheme would restrict <br /> any further units build pertaining to the plan before the board. <br /> Mr. Marsters commented that New Seabury has the proper frontage <br /> and that the fact that there is an agreement between Popponessett <br /> Corporation and New Seabury corporation will prevent New 'Seabury <br /> Corporation from getting access into Rock Island Association prop_ <br /> erty. Mr. Austin Keane , Attorney for one of the owners in Rock <br /> Landing Associates , commented that unless Lot 455 is included in <br /> the agreement, then New Seabury could use Rock Island Association <br /> property for access . Mr. Marsters commented that indeed Lot 455 <br /> was in the agreement already-. Mr. Marsters commented that the <br /> plan -as is is legal for the Planning Board to sign and that ig a <br /> question of Approval Not Required. Consequently, there is no <br /> appeal period to run from the decision of the Planning Board, <br /> Richard Terry asked what the procedure was in the past for New <br /> Seabury coming in before the board for Approval Not Required. <br /> MT. Terry asked ghat the procedure was that was followed by New <br /> Seabury' in the past concerning whether or not they had asked the <br /> approval of the Planning Board. Mr . Burden answered by saying, <br /> "Whenever a road had to be put in, then New Seabury would ask- <br /> the Planning Board to approve the plan. " Selma Rollins indicated <br /> that New Seabury needed to come in for roads only and because no <br /> road was necessary for this plan, then it was a situation where <br /> approval was not required. Mr. Marsters indicated that Town <br /> Counsel , Joseph- Riordian, stated that in 1963 New Seabury was <br /> given a special permit which was still active and that the per- <br /> mit was valid for this situation. Mr. Marsters indicated that <br /> Town Counsel Riordian stated t.o him over the telephone that the <br /> plan sh-ould -be- s igned as Approval Not Required. Mr. Austin Keane <br /> stated that when two - roads come in to the Rock -Landing area that <br /> this violates the agreement . It was Mr. Keane ' s opinion that <br /> the Rock- Island Road was eliminated -by the Land Court and that <br /> only the Rock Island Association members- and neighbors had a right <br /> to use that way and not New' Seabury. - Mr. Marsters.indicated that <br /> the private rights of individuals using the road were not a matter <br /> for' the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Keane asked that the issue <br /> he given to Town Counsel . Mr. .Marsters stated that whoever owns <br /> the road has no bearing on the question, but that the issue would <br /> be submitted to Mr. Riordian. There is no question that any pri- <br /> vate agreement between Poppone s s e tt and New Seabury still had to <br /> be complied with. Mr. Keane said that 20-foot frontage is the <br /> law and wondered whether Rock Island could be used for frontage . <br /> Mr. Keane s aid' that he did 'not think so and that Rock Island Road <br /> no longer existed as a legal street. Mr . Marsters indicated that <br /> Rock Island Road is cut, up but still exists and that whatever the <br /> Planning- Board does will have no bearing on any private agreement . <br /> Mr. Burden indicated that New Seabury does not plan on using Rock <br /> Island Road for access , that New Seabury would adhere to the agree- <br /> ment and that any buildings by New Seabury would be done west of <br /> the buffer zone. Mr. Burden said he would be glad to confirm that <br /> in writing Mr . Marsters indicated that 20-foot frontage was ade- <br /> -2_ <br />