8/21/1985 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Planning Board Augu, t 21`, 1985 Page 4 taking already non-conforming lots and increasing their non-conformity. Mr. Dubin explained that the original plan called for single-family units, but the developer decided to go to patio howes, so made the lots smaller. The resident noted that under their special permit New Seabury did not pre-map the area. They presented a plan with various sections delineated. In Section 19, for example, under the special permit they were allowed a maximum of 70 dwelling units. Their position, he felt, was that they didn't have 70, so they could go ahead and build them now. However, development has taken place. It is destroying what a lot of people thought was a single-family neighborhood. If a developer does not build the maximum number of allowed dwellings he can't come back later, after zoning has changed, and continue developing. Mr. Dubin agreed, but noted that there has only been one special permit like this one. There have already been two lawsuits and the Town has lost them both. The resident noted that neither one was appealed. His concern was that if New Seabury could do this here, they could do it in other areas. The reason the Town lost the lawsuit in 1975 was that the permit was issued, development began and the permit continued to be valid while it was being utilized. When this area was d6ne, it was done and they moved on. The resident pointed out that when New Seabury asks for building permits, the residents would like an opportunity to challenge. Mr. Ferragamo noted that if this had not been an 'Approval tot required" it would have gone through a public hearing process. Mr. Fudala questioned whether it was appropriate as an ANR since it does not meet current zoning requirements, Mr. Dubin felt it was appropriate in that they conformed to the zoning in effect at the time the special permit was issued. The resident felt that if the lots are to be redesigned today, they must conform to current zoning. The representative from New Seabury Corp. step-t.ed that he already had the permits. The resident asked that the Board revoke them and give the opposition a forum. Mr. Rowley felt that the whole question had to do with frontage. "The number, shape and sire of lots shown on the approved plans may be changed from time to time without action the Board", which means ANR, 'brovided that it still has frontage on a public way or way shown on a plan approved in accordance with the subdivision control law, of at least such distance as is then required." 7. Discussion of Parcel 5 (location not clear from tapes)), which the Town claims to own. Town Counsel's recommendations to the Town: - Not approve a plan laying claim to that land. - Modify the existing plan so it does not show Lot 5. - Lea it in. When the time comes to make a decision, request the decision be held up until the title is cleared. Concerning the technique of submission: according to Town Counsel, the root of the problem is the vagueness of the language in the by-laws in terms of the sequence of events as concerng the gg�ard A a Mr. Dubin explained to the applicant that lfe could subm= {��"i �� the