My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/5/2014 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
3/5/2014 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2022 3:32:40 PM
Creation date
12/17/2018 1:36:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/05/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Planning Board to require an upgrade of Blue Castle, to the extent that it was deemed necessary. <br /> Mr. Rowley added that the Planning Board should not require any upgrades outside of the limits <br /> of the layout, though Town Counsel had indicated that the applicant could obtain passion <br /> from the lot owners where the road was on their property. with the rights-of easement to <br /> improve the road,the Planning Board would then have sufficient authority to rewire the <br /> changes. Mr. Rowley believed that, as a matter of public-safety and the convenience of the <br /> residents, and due to the doubling of the number of homes,.it was under the purview of the <br /> Planning Board to determine.whether the road needed to be upgraded. <br /> The Chair inquired why the road would not be.located in its proper layout, particularly a <br /> ownership of the hones was likely to change, burdening the new owners. Mr. Costa stated that <br /> two of the abutters preferred that the road not be moved, adding that the draft decIsIon offered a <br /> solution for most parties. The Chair inquired about potential future issues and future owners <br /> who would be responsible for-maintenance of the road. IIIc. Costa stated that-the covenant would <br /> be in place requiring the association to be responsible for the road. <br /> lis. waygan stated that there had never been consensus on whether the planning Board had the <br /> right to require improvements outside of the road layout and how it could be accomplished. The <br /> options were to accept the offer of the applicant.to regrade the unpaved portion of B Iue Castle, <br /> with rights of easement provided by homeowners where the gravel road was loomed on their <br /> property or i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.