My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/1/1985 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
5/1/1985 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2019 2:34:48 PM
Creation date
12/6/2019 2:34:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/01/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
of CM4911pee <br /> P. O. BOX 1108 <br /> F, MASHPEE. MA 02649 <br /> PLANNING BOARD MINUTES : 5/l/85 P. 5 <br /> Mr, Fudala: The statutes provide for it to go before the Selectmen® <br /> That 's what Section 21 says ® <br /> Mr. Marsters : We 'll have to look at Section 21. Do we have a copy of <br /> this map -that 's referred to here? <br /> Hannah Averett: We didn't bring one with us . Haven't roads been moved <br /> to accommodate the developer? That 's 'what we 're trying to stop. If it 's <br /> an ancient scenic way it should remain as such ® <br /> Mr. Marsters : I don't think it 's always done to accommodate the developer® <br /> It could be done to straighten a poor situation. The ancient way could <br /> take a bad twist and you want to cut across . Sometimes it 's done <br /> just to straighten it out . <br /> Hannah Averett: But when it 's moved ® don't you have one down Punkhorn <br /> there that 's supposed to be left as is into a development in there? <br /> What was done? Was it widened or was that moved? <br /> Mr. Marsters : I don't think it was moved down there . of course it was <br /> widened and paved. <br /> Hannah Averett: Well that was an ancient way. Was that right to do <br /> that? <br /> Mr. Marsters : Certainly. I don't see any problem with this . Even this <br /> article here doesn't prohibit you from constructing the ancient way. If <br /> the ancient way now gets a lot of travel and needs to be constructed <br /> you're free to do that . Is it your understanding that this prohibits <br /> you from doing anything to an ancient way? Ancient ways are owned by <br /> people who has the right of way so people can construct it if they <br /> want and right to travel over it . <br /> Anna Tanneyhill: For instance Payamps Rd . which leads off of Old <br /> Barnstable Rd. That went before the Appeals Board because the developers <br /> were getting ready to usurp that, to close it off, put a gate there , and <br /> include it in the development and they were not allowed to do that ® <br /> Mr. Dubin: I 'm sure no one will argue the premise that everybody on the <br /> Planning Board'. Board of Selectmen as opposed to someone blocking off <br /> an ancient way over which public has a right of access . That there 's <br /> no doubt about. But what this article really does though that I see <br /> is create another hearing when the developer wants to relocate the <br /> ancient way® otherwise the Planning Board doesn't sit around approving <br /> discontinuance or blockages of ancient ways . In fact we normally look <br /> for woods roads on the topographic survey which accompanies the plans <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.