Laserfiche WebLink
shown on the revised sheet deleting <br /> t ng references to frontage and x, <br /> Setbacks, 'i . . .and, minimum lot frontage to 50 feet. * <br /> 5- <br /> 25 f eet f ront, o-15 sides. ; , �� �� . . .and an increase to at least ,,�4 <br /> 5o , from open space. . . " ; which Motion was seconded by Chance <br /> Re i the 1 and so voted unanimously. <br /> It was agreed upon by PlanningBoard Members an ,. <br /> d Board of . <br /> Appeals representation that the lines of communication remain f <br /> open and available in the future in order for both Board }s to work <br /> together towards a common goal, that of making responsible and '; ' <br /> sound decisions for the Town of Mash pee. <br /> p let, <br /> The Chairman inquired of Mr. Nelson, i f in light of the <br /> endment s made compromises ,.Alt am p omises and. deletions, the Board of <br /> Appeals would vote in favor of supporting the Plan. L <br /> Mr. Nelson replied, "I hope so. n He expressed continued <br /> uncertainty regarding the matter of cluster subdivisions, he <br /> reported he would represent this evening' s decision to thef, <br /> Board of Appeals Members as a negotiated effort between two <br /> parties, and that there were concessions made by the Planning , <br /> Board. (This matter concluded at l o , 15 p.m. ) <br /> Mr. Fudala suggested and the Planning pp Board approved to • <br /> recess the Public Hearing f or the purpose of addressing the ,. <br /> matter of: <br /> Discussion-John Druley, Quaker Homes-Water Quality Report <br /> The Chairman called this matter to order and recognized Mr. <br /> Druley. The Chairman established that Mr. Druley has had the <br /> Opportunity to review recommendations made by Town Counsel in <br /> this matter. For the benefit of Board Members the Chairman read <br /> a portion of said opinion: "Subdivision application of Druley <br /> Quaker Homes interpretation of 174-2 7A, Mashpee zoning, requested <br /> x <br /> g � <br /> an opinion regarding 174 2 7A, indicated that a proposed three (3) , <br /> lot Definitive Subdivision will soon be filed, wanted to know � <br /> whether the Applicant is required to f i 1 e a water Quality Report. <br /> Proposed plan is a subdivision of the remainder of a 6.2 acre <br /> parcel. . indicated that the 5.2 acre parcel has been divided ;0. <br /> recently into four (4) ANR, lots, one of which was an unbuildable <br /> hack lot. It is that unbuildable lot which the Applicants now <br /> pp , <br /> wish to subdivide. The original 5.2 acre parcel appears on a `, <br /> 1985 Assessor' s Map,. In my opinion, the Applicant is required to <br /> file a water Quality Report in accordance with Section 174-2 7A "'' Pilo <br /> which <br /> Y p .. �� <br /> ch requires submis s ion of a water Quality Report as part of <br /> : <br /> any application for approval of the Definitive. Exempted from <br /> this requirement are plans that result in a residential <br /> deVelopment density of less than one (1) unite for 2 acres. That <br /> exemption is not applicable here. Also exempted are plans which : <br /> would divide any parcel shown in the 1985 Assessor' s Maps into <br /> five 5 3 or fewer lots. The second exemption has two criteria, ` <br /> r <br /> 1j <br />