Laserfiche WebLink
refer to not build attached condominiums. The proposal favors a <br /> ,. -.� single-family parcel, similar to Phase I and II developments. <br /> ` - The revised layout provides for thirty (30) units, rather than <br /> the sixty-four (64) . Total density, including the ten (10) <br /> ■ <br /> existing would be forty (40) . <br /> f At this point, the Chairman brought to Mr. Besse' s attention a Memorandum received f rom the Cape Cod Commission <br /> (hereaf ter referred to as CCC) , dated December 3, 19 9 7, regarding <br /> the scope of this project. Mr. Besse replied it is his <br /> understanding that the Willowbend project is exempt (grand <br /> �' <br /> ' c <br /> V fathered) from the CCC. <br /> ko The Town Planner stated that representatives from the CCC <br /> + � <br /> viewed the Plan earlier y 1 ' r in the day and were of a different <br /> It a <br /> opinion, whereby the subdivision of the open Space appears to be <br /> '' in non-conformance with the original Permit and therefor is <br /> subject to their review. <br /> � AN <br /> �.,. F Attorney McElhinney concurred with Mr. Besse, that <br /> � willowbend is not subject to the CCC. The Town Planner <br /> 4 ` " clarified this would be the case if willowbend were to remain <br /> f� consistent with the original Permit. Both Mr. Besse and Attorney <br /> McElhinney agreed to review said Memorandum. <br /> ';ell�raw ,:s The Chairman recapped. " . . . staff of the Commission has <br /> �� .� <br /> reviewed the revised Plans. Reviews to determine whether it <br /> exceeds the threshold for DRI . You were granted a Special Permit <br /> prior to the cut-off date and were constructed in substantial <br /> compliance with that. It is the Commission staff opinion that <br /> since this Phase of the project consists of forty (40) units, it <br /> exceeds the DRI threshold. Thirty (3 0) being the threshold. <br /> Aware that the Permit was approved prior. . .our opinion that the <br /> portion of the revised project noted as Santuit River Lane is not <br /> p <br /> in substantial compliance with Special Permit for purposes of <br /> -, p <br /> Section 22B Exemption. Commission policy regarding this issue <br /> ' has been enclosed for your reference. Specifically, criteria <br /> #2 and #3 . Modification results in different or increased <br /> impacts.. Understanding the Santuit River Lane portion of proposed <br /> p g � P P <br /> was originally set aside as open Space, 3 . 37 acres was a <br /> significant nl f scant portion of the Open Space for this Phase. very <br /> g P P P Y <br /> ■ <br /> � concerned about preservation of open Space, protection o f natural <br /> resources. Also, it is our position that if the modified Plan is <br /> revised to eliminate the Santuit River Lane portion of the <br /> project, or the . . . in this portion are relocated into areas which <br /> were originally slated for development, proposal would be <br /> ykl41#1 + + considered in substantial compliance with the original Permit, " <br />■-# A�'; References made to #2 and #3 are Definition of Substantial <br /> =ti OA4F Compliance from the CCC. #2-Does not result in the requirement <br /> for additional local development permit review in the form of a <br /> 'k ' new permit approval or modification to the original approval . <br /> .y � #3-The changes do not result In different or increased impacts as <br /> Y� <br /> compared to the original local approval to the interest protected <br /> rSri -2- <br />'fir <br /> A f <br />