My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/18/1996 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
09/18/1996 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2022 5:01:58 PM
Creation date
3/8/2022 1:18:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/18/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
+„ <br /> h. <br /> would be our intention to do that were that to be necessary. " <br /> Attorney Butler took exception to the phrase "concessions, " �i, , <br /> as what was intended (although he was not present) , what he hoped <br /> was meant was a dialogue with the unit owners as a whole. <br /> Attorney Butler also informed the Board of a change in <br /> the Statute governing Fanny-Mae (he doesn' t know if this has made <br /> it to the regs yet) allowing things to go forward beyond the <br /> seven years with only fifty (50W) percent of the unit owners. ;Ia !, <br /> Attorney Butler stated that although he had not had a chance to <br /> talk with Attorney Ford, that he would be happy to work with him <br /> as part of this dialogue. i <br /> Ole- 81, <br /> The Chairman suggested the attorneys need to have a +: <br /> conversation. <br /> Attorney Butler stated the first he had heard of this was <br /> "last week. " And that he had heard of it from one of the unit <br /> owners who also informed Attorney Butler that Mr. Ford was <br /> Jr <br /> counsel . it was decided at that point that Mr. Bornstein should + <br /> meet with the unit owners. Attorney Butler again stated the he <br /> would be happy to work with Attorney Ford in an attempt to reach <br /> an accommodation. Attorney Butler stated, " . . .We are not the <br /> owner, we are a buyer. " <br /> Attorney Ford addressed the Chairman, stating that obviously ; <br /> there is a difference of opinion. He said he was pleased to hear R <br /> that at least it is recognized that without some sort of an <br /> extension there will be some difficulty in proceeding. Attorney 'AllI <br /> Ford stated that he raised the issue because he feels standing is . <br /> important for the Planning Board. That one must show that they <br /> have the rights, the ownership, the control under agreement to do <br /> what they are proposing to do before the Board. It is relevant <br /> and material to the proceedings from that standpoint. In view of I <br /> the fact the master deed has been filed and the Board is in <br /> possession of the by-laws, Attorney Ford requested the Board <br /> ,i <br /> take a look at the provision and note for the record, "That we , <br /> believe that the assent of the unit owners is necessary for the <br /> Planning Board frankly, to find that they have standing to be <br /> here. ,, <br /> The Chairman asked Attorney Ford if he was aware of the fact <br /> that Attorney Butler had submitted a letter from the owner (or :rl+i�ki <br /> the owner' s attorneY) <br /> Attorney Ford answered, "Yeah. I just saw that. And it <br /> refers to uh. . .the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and I wondered if <br /> he had a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. " <br /> The Chairman stated, "We don' t. " <br /> Attorney Butler answered, "The answer is "no, " we have not ! ,Iali"� <br /> filed that with this Board. I was asked by the Chairman and the <br /> 191�11e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.