Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> fl <br /> , <br /> 419 <br /> �6 <br /> is not to be considered a separate building -lot until such time <br /> as adequate frontage is provided on a way approved by the <br /> subdivision Control Laws by the Mashpee Planning Board,, " <br /> 0 <br /> The Chairman stated, he had not yet been convinced of the <br /> benefit/advantage to the Town, should the be osal ro approved-, <br /> proposal � <br /> There was some Board discussion at this point, Attorney <br /> Kilroy argued Applicant i.cant a _ <br /> , �r pp = 4 s �n the matter of the cited court <br /> case) is simply trying to make his title marketable a b being able <br /> to record <br /> d. Deed which _ � � <br /> has nothing to do with zoning or the use <br /> of the .and. Be stated by doing so would benefit the Town b 11 <br /> ' 1� <br /> !' <br /> enabling Applicant to do something with their property, by way of <br /> 4 <br /> conveyance, and permit the new owner to deal with the process. <br /> When asked by the Chairman, Mr. Rowley suggested this matter <br /> should first go before the Board of Appeals for a frontage <br /> variance, at which time the matter should come before the . <br /> Planning Board/subdivision process to waive the frontage} <br /> requirements, which would then •� ` �; , <br /> put the Plan in conformance with <br /> the Beard of Appeals , determination. Be also stated that if this <br /> were done, the matter would be consistently in compliance with <br /> '� g! <br /> z nin <br /> when given the opportunity to respond, Attorney Kilroy <br /> reiterated Applicant is not interested in using <br /> the property, <br /> but rather to divide and sell it to two different people, who e <br /> can n � =p p � <br /> the do as they choose with the development rights, He also <br /> stated that lack of frontage is not a basis for variance; he did <br /> however acknowledge the possible creation of a roadway which <br /> would provide the required frontage for use, <br /> At this point, the Chairman asked for public input and <br /> recognized John Drew, who stated he is one of the owners of the <br /> property under discussion, Mr. Drew responded to the issue of <br /> benefits to the Town, stating that if the Plan is approved there <br /> would be a gift to the Town of approximately eighteen (.18) acres <br /> of open space land, which would begifted through Living �'�,'� <br /> Independently Forever, one of the Buyers of the residential <br /> �fi <br /> portion of the property, x <br /> The Town Planner stated, with reference to the properr <br /> processing procedure, that determinations from both. the Planning it, <br /> Board and Board of Appeals is required, but that there is no ' <br /> particular sequence required. � <br /> The Chairman asked if any information is pending in this <br /> matter, to which the Town Planner stated that to his knowledge, <br /> there is no Board of Health report. <br /> After some Board discussion it was agreed to continue this <br /> matter, at which time consideration would be given to approving i <br /> the Plan by way of a vote provided there is a written request for <br /> 1�. <br /> 'i�iw <br />