Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> Jqlla ,S <br /> Approval Not Required <br /> Andrew Lipnosky/Cape & Islands Engineering <br /> Pimlico Pond, Road-Endorsement of 6-Lot ANR Plan <br /> The chairman recognized. Attorney Karrine who explained that <br /> two (2) of the six (6) lots shown on the Plan have adequate <br /> frontage on Pimlico Pond. Road., the intent being to utilize John <br /> rT Ewer Road as access to all lots. He stated an easement has been ' . <br /> prepared and indicated access to sites as shown on the Plan. He � <br /> further stated there is an ancient burial site upon the property <br /> h � <br /> whichas been located and delineated on the Plan, for which <br /> public access will be provided., as well as protection against an ' <br /> development. Plan of Land entitled, Subdivision Plan of Land , <br /> located in Mashpee, MA, being a subdivision of Lot B as shown on '.;' <br /> Land court Plan 19050A, dated February 2, 1998, cape & Islands <br /> Engineers. <br /> a i;; 4-:7 <br /> Attorney orne Karrine made reference t o Board_ Y � oa d of Appeals Decision <br /> for a variance, Re: Andrew Lipnosky v-97-57, 117 Pimlico Pond. p <br /> Road (map 2, Block 126) , 100 Pimlico Pond Road (map 3, Blocks 22 <br /> and lA) , He referenced Section 17 - -4 12 and 174 32, permission to <br /> permit construction of structures on unpaved. wags. <br /> The Town Planner commented this to be irrelevant to ANR Y <br /> Plans. � <br /> In response <br />. p to a questioned asked by the Chairman Attorney <br /> Karrine explained the Board of Appeals conditioned the variance <br /> Decision to require a minimum of twenty (2 0) foot wide paved. <br /> surface. <br /> Attorney Karrine <br /> stated that due to the fact he has obtained <br /> a variance from the Section quoted, he does not have to comply. , <br /> The Town Planner agreed the variance is valid under zoning- but <br /> that the Planning Board has been advised. by Town counsel that a ', � <br /> Zoning Board of Appeals variance is irrelevant because they have <br /> no effect to what is applied under Subdivision Regulations <br /> 1 <br /> y� 1 <br /> Attorney Karrine argued., "TSubdivision* <br /> his i s not a <br /> r <br /> There was discussion regarding ANR requirements. Attorney h � �E <br /> Karrine quoted from Section 81-L (C) . , <br /> "j Mr. Rowley disagreed with Attorney Karrinets statement that <br /> if the roadway is paved to a twenty (2 0) foot width, adequate # <br /> access would be provided. Mr. Rowley commented an ANR cannot be <br /> -_. p y <br /> conditioned, conditioning g approval (2 0) feet of rc p <br /> pproval subject 7ect to twenty <br /> paving, would place this matter under Subdivision control. He { <br /> :". suggested the Planning Board examine the road at the site in <br /> order to determine, in their opinion, whether or not it meets <br /> criteria c-adequate width, grade, and suitable surface to provide <br /> access for the purpose of the lots. <br /> �4, <br /> i�• <br /> f� r <br /> L <br />