Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion opened a7 7*0 40 PM <br /> Applicant: Dan C reedon/Ma rk olldea <br /> Location: Sandalwood. subdivision, Great Neck lid. South <br /> Request, Discussion of"unbuildable lots' on Sandalwood subdivision-plan. <br /> n <br /> Ilan Creedon,Attorney,represented the owner, Chris Burton regarding Lets 58160 which <br /> were approved in 1973. There is a legal issue with the original plan with notations across <br /> lots 581 59, & 60 "not specific building lots"; lots 65&66 are not separate building lots <br /> (on River Rd.). Lot 75 notated"not separate building lot"; lots retained by the petitioner <br /> (Fields Point Manufacturing Corp). with 1973 Planning Board notes "these three lots on <br /> Timber Landing Rd. would also remain unbuildable"because they were owned by the <br /> Fields Point Manufacturing Corp. The petitioner plan that went to Land Court was the <br /> one that was signed off by the Planning Bd.; the engineers at Land Court then created a <br /> plan that did not have the notes. The applicant has been to the Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> to request a variance; the ZBA took no action,thereby denying without prejudice. The <br /> ZBA informed the applicant to present to the Planning Board. Referring to the notes,Mr. <br /> Creedon made the following observations: 5116I73 Planning Bd. noted three parcels on <br /> Timber Landing Rd. owned by Fields Point not to be considered building lots, which -: <br /> corresponds with current plans. The next note from the minutes is 7/18/73 - the board y. <br /> voted to approve Fields Point subdivision between Timber Landing Rd. and Great Neck <br /> Rd. subject to: 1) not a building lot on all lots owned by Fields Point; 2)verification that <br /> River Rd. is a town way which will be reviewed by Mr. S avery; if it is not a town way, all <br /> lots fronting on River Rd. will be removed 3) Minutes from 8/1.5/73 state the De tive <br /> Plan for the Fields Point subdivision was signed by the board because River Rd. is not a } <br /> town way, iota 5 8, 59, 60, 65, 66 & 75 (lots along River Rd..)were"screwed"by"not a =; <br /> separate building lot". The owner of lot 59 was granted a frontage variance by the,SBA. <br /> That variance was granted in error by the ZBA. The lots are not buildable because they <br /> do not have the correct frontage as they front on River Rd. Some have no frontage, some <br /> have frontage on East Rd. Mr. Creedon's theory is that this was an open space <br /> subdivision which raises the question as to whether a variance is even needed. In a letter <br /> from Mir. Houle, these are"as of right"zoning by virtue of the subdivision having been y : <br /> approved and recorded;because it's an open space,the frontage requirement is not <br /> required if the open space is provided. Mr. Horgan stated that the Planning Bd., at the <br /> time, stated the they are not separate building lots. Mr. Creedon feels that what } <br /> distinguishes these three lots(65,66,75)from the other three lots is that they front only on <br /> River Rd.; 58,59,60 have 20' frontage on the East Rd. Zoning Bylaws from. 1973 are <br /> essentially the same as they are now. Mr. Fudala indicated that nothing overrides notes <br /> on plan. Mr. Creedon wants conditions removed from the plan because River Rd. is not a f <br /> town way. Per Mr. Fudala, if you have the correct frontage on a Town way, its legal. <br /> They have frontage,but it's not adequate. Currently, a cluster subdivision has to have <br /> 65' frontage; 60' on an arc. Mr. Fudala will check the zoning regulations. In that area, a <br /> lot size is 401,000 sq. it.; lot 58160 are undersized. Mr. Creedon feels this is a zoning <br /> 5 <br /> �i <br />