Laserfiche WebLink
f, <br /> 6! . <br /> �1 <br /> .,,,, Spyro suggested that Mr. Byrne inform the Planning Board <br /> 10 <br /> h,n <br /> .10 "' on his letterhead that he is the new owner and developer. <br /> - <br /> ^ { "F° Tony indicated that he was a little reserved about voting <br /> at the moment. <br /> At this point there was some discussion as to whether or <br /> not a formal vote should be taken. <br /> Mr. Byrne asked if a Public Hearing would be required for <br /> f <br /> " the sewerage system update. <br /> „ 'till 1116s <br /> Tom answered "yes,, because it is a physical change to the <br /> project. The Board has a Special Permit on record that requires <br /> the plant to have been done by June 1, 1994 . The recorded <br /> Decision needs to be changed to some future date, not the <br /> physical plan. He also stated that the project is in violation <br /> of the Decision, the Building Inspector will not issue any <br /> 'i '• �' , further permits until this issue has been taken care of. <br /> Tony clarified to Mr. Byrne that the Building Inspector <br /> will not issue any more building permits until either the plant <br /> ahs is in, or the Special Permit is modified and the date is changed. <br /> At that point the Planning Board would be able to vote the <br /> amendment, the permit would not be in violation, and the Building <br /> ddl <br /> Inspector could issue permits. He further explained the <br /> statutory process of newspaper advertising, posting and legal <br /> notice to the abutters with a public hearing on the matter. <br /> Tony further suggested Mr. Byrne provide definitive <br /> information from his engineering consultants . <br /> Tom explained there are two conditions in the Special <br /> Permit. One is the D.E. P. date requirement. The second is <br /> the deadline. The Cotuit Water District has a well site on <br /> f� the adjacent property. Their concern was that the project <br /> would be partially built, the sewerage treatment plant wouldn' t <br /> be on line and waste water would be heading towards their well <br /> site. The Board put in the deadline condition partly at their <br /> request. <br /> Spyro suggested not requesting a completion date; referring <br /> k only to the sixty-six (66) unit maximum. <br /> Mr. Grassetti outlined the three major items of concern <br /> '€4 of the unit owners: <br /> 1 . Sewerage Treatment Facility <br /> 2 . Water <br /> � d <br /> ®,' O 3 . Construction Vehicle Disturbances <br /> y, <br /> -10- <br /> lkl <br /> ,,I' <br />