Laserfiche WebLink
accepting costs related to paving the roadway. Mr. Polloni also inquired about membership in a <br /> Homeowners Association but Mr. Morin stopped communicating with Mr. Polloni. Mr. Polloni was <br /> seeking authorization from the Planning Board to determine adequacy of the road so that the <br /> homeowners could obtain a building permit. <br /> Mr. Balzarini felt that the homeowners should not be responsible for the road or be part of the <br /> association. After reviewing the minutes, Mr. Polloni noted that the developer's attorney, although <br /> voluntary, stated that the property owners could join the Association at a prorated cost, in order to <br /> assist in the maintenance of the road. Mr. Polloni stated that the question about obtaining a building <br /> permit was related to the definition of a street and whether it met subdivision roads. Mr. Balzarini <br /> stated that the road had been improved adding that there were already existing homes on the road. Mr. <br /> Polloni added that the road would be maintained annually. <br /> Mr. Rowley suggested that the Planning Board needed to review several aspects of the matter, not just <br /> the Bylaw. Mr. Rowley researched Blue Castle, noting that records stretched back to 1965, but was <br /> likely laid out prior to that time. The release of lots fronting on the street was different than the <br /> Subdivision Control Bylaw, Mr. Rowley referenced a similar situation during the 1990s in New <br /> Seabury, whereby the road was required to be upgraded and brought to current standards, before lots <br /> could be released. Conaumet Highlands (Fox Hill, Candlewood and other area roads), set a similar <br /> precedent, whereby project proponents seeking lot releases were required to complete their fair share <br /> of road work as a mechanism to ensure that roads were built to a better standard. Mr. Rowley <br /> indicated that the road improvements, infrastructure and Special Permit for Ockway Highlands was <br /> specific to that development. It was Mr. Rowley's opinion that there was still work necessary to <br /> upgrade the roadway between the two paved areas, including storm water management. Mr. Rowley <br /> confirmed that the travel area had been widened to 16 feet and cleared to 20 feet, and included <br /> placement of reclaimed asphalt materials, stone and drainage swales on each side. It was Mr. <br /> Rowley's opinion that the portion of the road should also be extended to 20 feet, adding that the <br /> section of the road was considered a subdivision street. <br /> Mr. Polloni disagreed with Mr. Rowley, noting that the road was not paved due to issues of legal right <br /> of way. Instead of requiring pavement, the Town offered a compromise of not paving the entire length <br /> of the road way. Mr. Polloni suggested that it would be unfair to these homeowners to be required to <br /> pave their portion of the roadway, when it would now be more expensive to do so. Mr. Polloni stated <br /> that there were only 4 undeveloped lots, so little traffic would be added to the road. Additionally, it <br /> was Mr. Polloni's opinion that the lots were created before Subdivision Control Law, referencing a <br /> buildability report he had initially drafted explaining the title for the lots, originally owned by David <br /> Green and transferred in 1957 to another owner. Mr. Polloni suggested that the Planning Board had <br /> the authority to determine adequate access, adding that the non-conforming situation required a unique <br /> resolution. <br /> Chairman Waygan referenced her understanding that the neighborhood did not want the roadway <br /> paved and Mr. Balzarini agreed. Mr. Polloni emphasized that cost was a factor. Mr. Rowley added <br /> that more research was necessary, and inquired about the property being non-conforming and whether <br /> it was part of David Green's development. Mr. Polloni stated that the lots did not meet the minimum <br /> lot requirement and that they were established in 1957 and he was unsure whether they were part of <br /> Mr. Green's development. Mr. Rowley expressed concern that there was a layout for Blue Castle <br /> Drive dated 1965, inquiring whether those lots were included with that layout, which would impact <br /> whether the lots had rights to Blue Castle and identify the frontage. The Chair wished to send the <br /> matter to Town Counsel for further review. Mr. Polloni inquired how the other homes were allowed to <br /> 3 <br />