Laserfiche WebLink
6 t ■� <br /> t <br /> Valley Subdivision. The Cha z rman summarized, IfAs you are aware., <br /> Baxter & Nye and 1 have attended a number of Hearings with regard <br /> to a request for a Release of a number -of lots from the � <br /> Covenant, . .affecting the completion of the Covenant for this <br /> section of Qua.shnet valley Subdivision. . , throughout our <br /> discussions, Fudala has raised an issue concerninginappropriate <br /> � <br /> action of the Boa-rd in having approved a subdivision plan <br /> creating a forty (4 o ft. ) foot right of way along Great Hay Road <br /> without benefit of a vote of Town Meeting authorizing said road- <br /> to be built. I have been asked to look into this issue since it <br /> yti;I i <br /> is my belief that as an abutter LaCava has the ability to improve `''' : <br /> Great Hay. . throughout the course of discussion it seems to have <br /> q , <br /> been Fuda l a t s concern the roadway { <br /> y not be constructed on any <br /> portion of Town land, since there has never been any formal vote <br /> at Town Meeting authorizing. . .Examining a number of documents <br /> available at the Clerk' s office and Registry of Deeds, I believe <br /> it is safe to assume that "Great Hay" so-called, is an old way <br /> open to the public. . .There is an 1877 map which served as the <br /> basis of the conveyance of all land by a Commission appointed to ,. <br /> conveyed land within the Town of Mash pee to the portion ' <br /> ! � P <br /> of LaCava property in question arises from the Commissioners <br /> Deed. . .As I have indicated, that Deed reference is the Amos <br /> as being bounded b the westerly line of i <br /> property, g y y sa d Great Hay <br /> Road. . .The Town derives its title by virtue of tax taking. <br /> . . .Parties against whore the taking was made derived their title <br /> from the Amos parcel also on the 1877 map. . .Based upon a review <br /> of the description of the properties in question, our opinion to ` '' <br /> be bath our client and the Town of. Mashpee have ownership <br /> interest only to the sideline of Great Hay. . .As such it is our • <br /> contention that Great Hay Road being a way open to the public, to i <br /> which the public acquired prescriptive rights, that it would be <br /> within the scope of such rights and as an abutter to the road ';,,. <br /> }des <br /> requiring the utilization of said road for access and egress, <br /> that our client would be permitted to improve Great Hay for %� <br /> purposes of access/egress. " ;,. <br /> There was some Board discussion in this regard. the Chairman <br /> interpreted Attorney Kirrane Is argument to be that neither party, <br /> -11 <br /> the Town or his client, own the road, but that as abutters you Pilo. <br /> have the right to use the road for access/egress and to improve #';kAll. <br /> it for such. �• <br /> Karp <br /> "As indicatedi ' intention o exten . ## <br /> t �.s not our clients t d the <br /> roadway beyond its easterly sideline boundary and as such our <br /> rl,j: <br /> contention is that by constructing the roadway within its . <br /> confines, as shown on the survey plans, which have been submitted ;. <br /> to the Board that on property owned by our client, that we are <br /> not engaged in any trespass to the Town' s property. As an + j <br /> abutting owner to the way open to the public, it is our <br /> contention that we would have the right to use the way and to � a <br /> make reasonable repairs and improvements, to the way since general <br /> Public believed to have the only interest in this old way, we <br /> believe that as an abutter we would be within our rights to <br /> -3- <br />