Laserfiche WebLink
I I <br /> is stated in at lust two separate paragraphs, number 8 on page 14 and 5.5 on page 12, <br /> that there will be no condominiums built at Sea Side. This assertion was further <br /> supported by a marketing brochure and a video conceptualising the new village of Sea <br /> Side. The residents who bought lots or homes in Sea Side as recently as 2007 and 2006 <br /> invested under the same plan as there were no indications of any.changes. The present <br /> proposal by Bayswater Development submitted to the Planning Board envisions spinning <br /> off -lots, previously part of Sea Side, and incorporating therm into a newly created area <br /> called Ocean Side. other land between these -lots and Tide watch, which is a <br /> contiguous subdivision of New Seabury, is also being added to Sea Side. A third piece of <br /> land delineated by moving the road, Shore give west, to the north has also been added <br /> to Ocean Side. First, we the residents object to changing the original boundaries of Sea <br /> Side by taking away -lots and renaming them Ocean Side. This action by Bayswater <br /> Development violates the conditions of the agreements under which we all bought our <br /> respective properties. Secondly, we are concerned that Bayswater Development may <br /> develop at ocean Side }sigh density units which not only would create congestion, <br /> nuisance, and hazards, but would be against the original plan for Sea Side as a quiet, <br /> tranquil, waterfront community of twenty-five single family homes. Moreover, any <br /> multiple unit structures in the four contiguous lots, formerly of Sea Side and now part of <br /> the plan Ocean Side, would diminish the economic value of our present homes. Lastly, <br /> we wish to register our strong disappointment in-the failure of New Seaury to inform u <br /> and share ith us in advance their plans for the reconfiguration of Sea Side. we were <br /> first informed of their plans when some ofus received a notice from the Planning Board <br /> about this Dearing. New Se bury had given us assurances repeatedly in the past that they <br /> would discuss with us at Sea.Side any transfornnative plans-involving our Village wel l in <br /> advance of their decision to finalize there. Their failure to do so surprised us. <br /> Reconune'n.dation-We recommend that this letter objecting to the-spinm"ng off of -lots <br /> from Sea Side and renaming them Ocean Side, as well as expressing our opposition to <br /> any future development of high density units on these lots become part of the record of <br /> this Dearing. The record should also reflect our disappointment in New Seabury's failure <br /> to inform us of their plans in advance. And finally, the record.should show that in the <br /> event such high density units are planned to be built we intend to protect our rights under <br /> the agreement reached with New Se bury when we all bought into Sea Side." <br /> The Chairman expressed her disappointment that Applicant did not communicate <br /> with the abutters, stating the Planning Board prefers to see communication between <br /> abutters and the developers of proposed development to-be worked out between the <br /> parties. The Planning Board cannot settle matters between the developers and the <br /> abutters, The Board understands the concerns raised by the abutters, but communication <br /> with the developer is recommended. <br /> The Chairman suggested that both parties make an attempt to meet and discuss <br /> the issues of concern prior to the two-week continuation of the Public Hearing. <br /> There being no further Board or Public coffunent the Chairman entertained a <br /> motion. <br /> 5 <br />