Laserfiche WebLink
y <br /> Steve Putnam of 10C, and representing the Beechwood Board reported that Mr. Gardner had <br /> made contact with the residents and in the third survey, ° of the residents agreed to the <br /> change to 3 5 Santuit Pond way, should a ch.ang .be necessary. Mr. Putnam confirmed that there <br /> were 52 condominium units. <br /> Jennifer Jackman, 713, confirmed that there was consensus to change Beechwood Point Drive <br /> and reiterated the-residents' appreciation for compromise with the Town and recognition of the <br /> residents' desires to maintain their Santuit identity. Ms. Jacl yn confirmed that there was <br /> reduced participation in the final survey and noted that all residents would prefer to keep their <br /> address as 3 5 Santuit.Pond Road, since there would not be a big difference in locating the units. <br /> M.r.'Balarini recommended maintaining the street name but adding the unit number as part of <br /> the address to assist with location. Mr. Fudala responded that Beechwood Point Drive was a <br /> separate road from Santuit Pond Road, which required a separate stream name. Mr. Fudala also <br /> noted that there was confusion between na rmng a road and addressing. Mr. Fudala noted that-the <br /> only change in the addressing would be give to way, as agreed to between the residents and the <br /> 911 Coordinator. It was suggested that 35-be part ofth road name but Mr. Fudala stated that a <br /> number could not be part of a street name. Ms. Waygan emphasized the importance of the <br /> Address working Group to be present at-the meeting to respond to concurs, emphasizing that <br /> only a quarter of the units responded to the third-survey. <br /> Edward Seekonk, 1 OA, a former Chief of Police, agreed with the Beechwood contradiction and <br /> recommended that the street be r -wed, supporting the mange to Santuit Pond Way, a way of <br /> of Santuit Pond load. <br /> Mr. Putnam inquired about usage of 35 Santuit Pond way as acceptable and Mr. FuMa <br /> confirmed that it would be used as the address but that the road could not.be named 3 5 Santuit <br /> Pond load. There was further discussion to chwify the confusion between addressing and <br /> naming a road. Ms. waygan saw no state regulations that would not allow the street name to <br /> include 35. Mr_ Fudala stated that the subdivision road required its own street name. Ms. <br /> W ygan inquired again about the number of respondents and Ms. Jackman responded that 25 <br /> people responded to the survey with 14 agreeing to the change if necessary, 7 who did not <br /> support the compromise and 4 who did not take a position. <br /> The Chair asked for Mr. Roy ley's opinion. lir. Rowley stated that the condominium was one <br /> lame lot with 35 assigned to the one lot, related to Sanhk Pond Road. Regarding changing the <br /> deeds, it was confirmed that the land was registered as a quick claim, and Nor. Rowley suspected <br /> that the only time the name would need to be changed would be in the case of a deed transfer, <br /> but suggested following up to confinn. Ms. Jackman stated that the working Group agreed to <br /> maintain the address as 3 5'Santuit Pond way to avoid m' cumng additional expenses. lir. Fudala <br /> noted that the Planning Board was not responsible for nunmberin& which was determined by the <br /> 911 Coordinator. Ms. Waygan recommended that concerned residents contact the Selectmen. <br /> prances wise inquired about changing the road from Beechwood Point to Santuit Pond way, and <br /> why it could not be changed to 35 Santuit Pond load. fir. Fudala responded that there was <br /> already a road named Santuit Pond load and Beechwood Point Drive was a separate road. Mr. <br /> Fudala finiher explained that emergency responders agreed to Santuit uit Pond way because it was <br />