Laserfiche WebLink
H <br /> , <br /> Because these *gyre no r pres en tat.�ve <br /> Development and no correspondence requesting an e:;tcrls .Uzi <br /> was received, no continuation date was set at this time. <br /> Applicant: Merganser Realty Trust <br /> Location: "Turner Road" 3 00 feet north of r alm.auth <br /> Town Line. <br /> Request: Continuation of Public Hearing to review the <br /> r Definitive Plan for a 5I-lot subdivision. <br /> ;4 Donald Angus , attorney was present representing Merganser <br /> a Realty Trust. Also present were Mike McGrath. surveyor, Mr. <br /> Bill Bent, traffic engineer, and Tine Cokanhower, to present <br /> water quality report. <br /> Tony told Mr. Angus in regards to the question of applicable <br /> y zoning by law, Town Council has not changed his opinion on <br /> this issue. It is his opinion that there is no provision in <br /> the state statue to protect this filing and it has to be <br /> a reviewed under current area requirements <br /> - ` Mr. Angus distributed a summary of the presentation, he <br /> ` stated that they have researched the legislative history and <br /> .YNt <br /> (L' <br /> found the provision to registered mail was added of terward <br /> and there was no legislative intent to limit it to d%- initilre <br /> w <br /> plans . In the Mashpee by laws there is nothing which <br /> •N'�Ti <br /> -` indicated a different type of filing for definitive vs . <br /> preliminary plan. The Planners Handbook addresses the <br /> issue, it states a plan is considered delivered on date of <br /> £� postmark date when sent by registered mail (pg. 32 of <br /> -t handbook) . Tom stated that the problem was in the <br /> addressing. It was addressed to the Planning Board not the <br /> Town Clerk <br /> 7rn i <br /> Tony said the Board was prepared to go forward with <br /> the technical review of the subdivision. <br /> e <br /> Mike McGrath a member of the civil engineering firm which <br /> prepared plans was present. He briefly described the plans <br /> fill presented. Mr. Rowley previously gave the applicant a set of <br /> comments. While some of the comments have been addresser:. <br /> `r some have not yet been addressed and they have not vet <br /> A submitted revised plans which require some minor revisions . <br /> Tony asked that rather than discussing the fine points o.�. <br /> the subdivision, would like to move on to the traffic and <br /> water quality reports . <br /> .j <br /> Mr. Bent was present from the f irm which prepared the <br /> s traffic report. Tony mentioned that quys Lions, h.al been <br /> raised about the traffic report he had prepared for an <br /> adjacent subdivison. Will those same issues be present in <br /> 6 rw. <br /> ,tip s <br /> z <br /> ,�yi. <br />