My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/03/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
10/03/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2018 5:01:03 PM
Creation date
10/19/2018 9:03:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/03/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the Chair referenced Mashpee Subdivision Regulations and Chapter 41 of Massachusetts General Law <br /> which allowed the Planning Board to amend the Subdivision to include time constraints. Mr. Lehrer <br /> added that the law did allow for the revocation but that it was not the intent of the Board. Public <br /> comment was opened and the Chair asked for a motion to roll over all comments from the prior Public <br /> Hearing. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to take all comments and information received during <br /> the Public Hearing on the Subdivision, to be rolled into this portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. <br /> Kooharian seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> Rick Walden, Gia Lane, questioned allowing the developer more time to complete the work, <br /> suggesting that the site looked like a bomb had exploded. Mr. Walden walked through the area daily, <br /> and noted that the developer did not care about the conditions in the area. Mr. Walden expressed <br /> concern about the retention ponds and the contractors who were moving piles of dirt from place to <br /> place. Mr. Walden expressed concern about waiting until the spring to address the issues at Carriage <br /> Lane. Mr. Rowley responded that approved Subdivisions and Special Permits allowed developers time <br /> to complete their projects, and with current zoning, totaled 8 years. Mr. Rowley stated that they were <br /> attempting to encourage Mr. Morin to complete the first portion on Blue Castle adding that Carriage <br /> Lane would need to be addressed before he could begin developing the homes. Additionally, Mr. <br /> Rowley stated that, the drainage areas needed to be fixed and was not intended to be retention ponds. <br /> Chairman Waygan referenced the email received from Mr. Morin who indicated that he wished to meet <br /> with the Planning Board in early November, but the Planning Board would be moving forward with <br /> their plans. In addition, another email providing an update of the status of the project did not <br /> adequately address concerns raised by Mr. Rowley, The Chair also stated that correspondence had <br /> been received from the Law Office of John Pollini, representing Ellen Brady, in reference to <br /> establishing a Homeowners Association. The Chair inquired whether a timeline needed to be <br /> established to create the Homeowners Association, which was referenced in the Special Permit. Mr. <br /> Balzarini felt that it would be difficult to establish an Association without the new homes being built. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that there remained the question for the homeowners on Blue Castle Drive whether <br /> the roadway was sufficiently adequate to build on their properties, regardless of whether they joined an <br /> Association. The Chair provided Mr. Betts with a copy of Section 34 to share with his attorney, <br /> Bob Betts, 56 Summer Sea Road and 20 Blue Castle Drive, indicated that the neighbors had been <br /> addressing the condition of the road for years, stating that he would be willing to contribute to <br /> maintaining the road with the other Blue Castle owners. The Chair stated that there was some <br /> mechanism for the road to be maintained within the Special Permit, Mr. Lehrer stated that the property <br /> owners had a right to improve the road to provide adequate access as approved by the Board. Building <br /> Commissioner Mike Mendoza would determine whether or not the roadway provided adequate access <br /> to a public way, which was Great Neck Road South. Mr. Betts expressed his preference to work with <br /> someone other than the developer and Mr. Lehrer agreed that he had options to work on other means to <br /> address the issue, due to the substantial cost to improve the roadway. Mr. Rowley stated that there <br /> were certain requirements to be met in Section A. The developer was responsible for establishing the <br /> Association as the primary owner. Mr. Betts was seeking a solution but the Planning Board could not <br /> provide the solution, other than communication with the developer. Mr. Rowley stated that the <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.