Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> December schedule. <br /> B. 307 Shore Drive, Maushop - SAS over the property line <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that this is a continuance of the last meeting. It was still <br /> under discussion, nothing formal. <br /> Mr. Doherty wanted to throw his feelings out on the table. He was pretty much <br /> of the same opinion, as he had been before this second review of the file. The <br /> request that originally came before the BOH members gave him the impression <br /> that the Board was being leveraged by the homeowner to force the installer to <br /> do something that the homeowner didn't want to pay for. He did not like being <br /> in that position. Since, based on passed practice, the homeowner's always <br /> owned to the center of the side of the roads. He understands that the BOH has <br /> received letters to the contrary. The oversight was unfortunate it but it doesn't <br /> really present a problem. He is still of that belief. Primarily because that <br /> position was supported by the New Seabury Corporation. There is a letter from <br /> them, in file, that states that the encroachment is considerable. However, they <br /> don't consider it a problem. Quite frankly, if Mrs. Barr is uncomfortable with it <br /> and wants it moved, let her move it. If Mrs. Barr wants the BOH to force <br /> someone else to move it. He is not inclined to go that route. Will he grant a <br /> variance supporting this position? Absolutely. Will he require the installer to <br /> move it? No, he is not inclined to. He doesn't like to be leveraged that way. It is <br /> not the first time or the last time that someone isn't happy with something and <br /> tries to get the BOH to force somebody else to do something. If conditions were <br /> different and it did present considerable and objectionable problems to New <br /> Seabury. They might have to look at it from a different angle. Where everybody <br /> acknowledges it, but, nobody seems to consider it a problem. He is not inclined <br /> to force the installer to dig it up and move it. <br /> Mr. Harrington then asked if he could have a moment to back up his <br /> recommendations. His first recommendation was to grant the variance after the <br /> fact by having the BOH state that the septic is over the property line. <br /> Furthermore, that on a couple of occasions both Elias McQuaid and Orin <br /> Evans, who saw it in the field helps to confirm that everyone has had a hand in <br /> this. The Town of Mashpee can say that they know it is there and they can <br /> grant the variance. That in turn releases the homeowner from any future <br /> problems because the Town has allowed the variance. What Mrs. Barr was <br /> really worried about is the possible future sale of the property. They don't want <br /> to have to deal with getting "bit" again when they know that there is a problem. <br /> The septic inspections have no failure criteria for setbacks. The only point in <br /> time they might get stung, as long as that septic system is operation, is if New <br /> Seabury changes their mind somewhere down the line. That is why he made <br /> another one of his recommendations which is to keep Bortolloti Construction <br /> on the line by making a condition that the BOH is not going to make him move <br /> it now. But, he needs to understand that he has volunteered his labor to move <br /> it if there is a problem. Mr. Harrington spoke with Bob Bortolloti before the last <br /> meeting. Mr. Bortolotti stated that he would work with the BOH. He asked, <br /> however, that they keep economics in mind. He knew that it had been done <br /> improperly. However, he never got paid for the original job. He is asking just for <br />