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
The decision was signed by Mr. I ooharian. A recess was taken at : -p.nn. <br /> 8:30 Applicant: BCDM,LLC <br /> Location: on and between Blue Castle.Drive and Degrass Road, identified on the <br /> Mashpee Assessors Maps as Map 104, Blocks 14, 20 and 4 <br /> Request: Approval of a Special Permit for a 16 lot cluster subdivision <br /> 8:30 Applicant: BCDM,LLC <br /> Location: on and between Blue Castle Drive and legrass load, identified on the <br /> Maskpee Assessors Maps as Map 104 Blocks 14, 20 and 48 <br /> Request: Approve 16-lot cluster subdivision Definitive Subdivision Plan <br /> The appointed time having arrived, Chairman Fetes opened both publ i c hearings and read for <br /> the record the applicant's request. Matt Mosta of Costa Asso6ates represented the applicant, <br /> along with Attorney Brian wall, and reported that sidewalks had been added to the plan and that <br /> they had reviewed the draft decision with.no additional comments. Mr. Fudala stated that <br /> significant issues associated with the project had been included in the conditions. <br /> Chairman Petersen expressed his concern regarding original documentation presented by the <br /> applicant and the inclusion of Blue Castle Drive in the project. The Cir read Attorney wall's <br /> letter and questioned whether the subdivision presented matched ghat was described in the letter, <br /> adding that if the subdivision needed Blue Castle give, then.improvement of the road was <br /> necessary or turnarounds would be required. Additionally, the Chair stated that for the Planning <br /> Board-to make a decision, the road should be within its proper layout. The Chair also stated that <br /> it was an imposition to place on homeowners the cost to maintain the road. The Chair in <br /> referenced the original letter that stated that Blue Castle was not needed, which would then <br /> require turnarounds for emergency vehicles. Chairman Petersen stated that the Planning Board <br /> needed to determine whether the project was a subdivision needing Blue Castle or not needing <br /> Blue Castle, existing as its own development and requiring fulfillment of the subdivision <br /> regulations. The Chair read the subdivision regulations. Mr. Costa responded that there was <br /> confusion regarding the interpretation of the.letter, suing that the letter addressed legal frontage, <br /> not just access. Additionally, Mr. Costa stated that by definition, it was not a dead end road. Mr. <br /> Costa also indicated that the road would be i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.