8/21/1985 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Planning Board August 21 ' 1985 Page'`3 Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals had been mato A restUnt expressed concern with increased traffic on Route 28. Mr. Dubin explained that is beyond the Board's realm. The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission does relew overall planning for the Cape@ and may have advisory data on this. 3. Continuation of hearing on Mashpee Investors gust's request for Defin- itive Plan approval of the Bay Ridge III subdivision. At the last hearing Mr. Rowley asked for soil tests and a grade adjust- ment of the road at "Station 6." Both of these requests have been mate Mr* Rowley noted that this afternoon he adked for leeching pits . hown on the profile* He also wants the grades 6f the leeching pits to be shown for the contractor. The applicants agreed to meet these requests. A motion was made and passed to approve the subdivision subject to the changes. It will be signed on September 18. 4. Application for release of Road Covenant by Robert Wells* Mr. Wells explained that he bought his lot in 1972. That sale was a violation of the Covenant whcih Mr. Wells should not be responsible for, A motion was made and passed to reftse the Covenant. 5. Submission for signature of Definitive Plan for 4-lot subdivision by Bay View Builders. A discussion took place on the road situation. The applicant explained that since the road dntrance has been approved, they now intend to resume r work on the road. He noted that his engineers had submitted figures for Mr. Rowley. He wished now to discuss the bond for completion of the road. Mr. Rowley was concerned with the drainage, catch basin area and the location of utility poles. The applicant felt the cost of changing the location of the utility poles was his responsiblity., He figured his bottom line figure for road completion at $63,350. Mr. Rowley noted that if the applicant increased his bond by 50% it should be approved. He recomanded to the Board that, because there are a number of people at the and of this constructed area who use the road for access, a time limit shmid be put on the bond and then the road must be finished. The applicant agreed to a 3-month limit. The applicant explained that none of his lots had been transferred as yet to third parties, however, the original timer did buy back one lot. Toga Fudala questioned whether, according to EOCD's latest information, these lots are still protected under'kpproval not required." He felt the Building Inspector would have to make a decision based on what Town Counsel comes up with. Mr. Dubin made a motion to set bond at the September 4 meeting at $100,000. 6. An information-seeking meeting concerning the lots in the (Greenwood Village?) section of New Seabury. The resident questioning the plan (Dr. Makim?) wondered whether the lots had been presented to the Board for re-division. Since each of the lots does not conform to current zoning, where is the authority for allowing the change from the way it was orig- inally divided? The minimum lot size in= that area is 40,000. They are