Laserfiche WebLink
made a written request to Attorney Ford (two weeks ago) inquiring <br /> as to the possibility of . further discussion of this matter. <br /> Attorney Butler expressed a willingness to do so, and also <br /> !' informed Attorney Ford of his intention, if necessary, to enforce <br /> u,.. the rights of the current owner and possibly this buyer, as <br /> related to the Fannie Mae approvals. Attorney Butler stated that <br /> the letter referred to in the aforementioned letter from Attorney <br /> Ford is in fact an extension of the Rights. <br /> Attorney Butler further stated for the Record the following <br /> : y 9' <br /> } The ability to add phases and the special rights of the developer <br /> under the Master Deed Declaration of Trust have been <br /> r <br /> extended; if necessary, this issue will go to litigation; the <br /> question of standing is moot; if it is deemed helpful to the <br /> Board and to the unit owners, he is prepared to engage in further <br /> discussion; an attempt on his part has been made to Contact the <br /> , unit owners' counsel to no avail. <br /> ' f The Chairman expressed the Board' s interest in Applicant' s <br /> •; p pp <br /> standing as it pertains to Relate? Companies, and authorization <br /> to act on their behalf. The Chairman acknowledged receipt of a <br /> letter from Related, whereby authorization was given to make <br /> representation and speak on their behalf, etc. The Chairman <br /> further stated the Fannie Mae issue does not pertain to the <br /> ' t Planning Board as it has no effect on the Town of Mashpee <br /> zoning Bylaws and/or Board Regulations. The Planning Board <br /> will determine if the Fannie Mae issue is one the Board will <br /> address. The Chairman reiterated the Board does require <br /> clarification of authorization from the current property/permit <br /> owner. Attorney Butler acknowledged understanding and agreement. <br /> :E The Chairman suggested Applicant/Unit owners take advantage <br /> of the opportunity for further discussion, on a friendly basis, <br /> regarding the Plan Currently proposed for consideration. <br /> Attorney Butler pointed out that at the Hearing on February <br /> were made b the representatives f the <br /> <. 5, 1997, statements e e � e o <br /> Trustees and Homeowners of concerns regarding lot coverage being <br /> till <br /> :=< too great, the superiority of the original plan, a sense of <br /> community within the Current units. Attorney Butler made the <br /> point to the Board that Applicant is reverting back to the <br /> original concept in an attempt to address certain concerns. <br /> The Chairman recognized Mr. Traczyk, who stated that to his <br /> E knowledge, the land is currently in the Trusteeship. The <br /> Trusteeship being the ownership of the fourteen (14) existing <br /> units. Mr. Traczyk further stated that he_ had spoken directly <br /> to Attorney Butler over one week ago, and told him there would <br /> be no need for a meeting due to the fact they were not satisfied <br /> y with the previous Plan/Agreement. <br /> The Chairman recognized Eileen Prose, who questioned the <br /> !141, <br /> approval of procedure as outlined earlier in the Hearing. The <br /> Chairman explained that the developer may seek to change the <br /> buildings; the request is that the Permit be transferred into <br /> their entity as is, with certain Modifications for resolution. <br /> '# �} The transfer would take place with the buildings and footprints <br /> that have been in existence since 1987. The developer would be <br /> `y able to continue construction based upon anew phasing schedule <br /> - 8- <br /> z <br />