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
y, I <br /> Fenn doesn' t reference that they have reviewed anything. And it <br /> does emphasize constructed and substantial compliance. <br /> Attorney Butler held his position that if the garages are <br /> taken off along with a few other things, he is not sure the <br /> parties are that far apart. He expressed an interest in <br /> addressing some of the comments that were made in this Hearing. <br /> He stated that it is certainly not the intent to denude all the <br /> trees. The comment regarding elimination of phasing is totally <br /> incorrect and made reference to his Exhibit C, which is a phasing <br /> schedule. <br /> • I;r!11�j.M�t <br /> The Chairman asked Attorney Butler, based on the <br /> informational discussions that have taken place, if they want to <br /> complete all of the infrastructure (roadways, etc. ) . <br /> Attorney Butler clarified there is nothing in the master <br /> deed that defines a phase. It refers to phases 1, 2, 3 and 4; <br /> there is no phasing plan or phasing designation. a, <br /> The Chairman asked if it had been included in the Special <br /> Permit . <br /> Attorney Butler said it was in the Special Permit; that he <br /> was referring to the Fanny-Mae discussion. The prior Special <br /> Permit had phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 shown on a plan that is recorded I <br /> with the Special Permit. Those phases were to be built 1-2-3-4 <br /> and each had a maximum number of forty-one units per phase; you J'� <br /> 6; ' , <br /> had to finish the whole phase before you could even touch another � I <br /> phase. What Mr. Bornstein was proposing, was to leave the phased n'£, • <br /> limitations in terms of the number of units, but to allow for <br /> construction of the units to take place in a broader fashion and ? :'�` It1 <br /> not be constrained to the construction phases. They also talked <br /> about building the infrastructure, including the roadways, all at <br /> the time that the first phase was done. ;,�ti'IE' <br /> The Chairman asked Mr. Traczyk if he understood the 4;' <br /> proposal, to which Mr. Traczyk answered, "Yes. " "That' s what we <br /> didn' t want. We wanted the building identified 1-2-3-4-5 and <br /> they are in the plan as to what was to be built. " :� �7� <br /> a� <br /> The Chairman clarified as to his understanding and based on <br /> discussions, if Mr. Bornstein were to go forward, he would like <br /> to complete the roadways, infrastructure and utilities and then :u <br /> adhere to a quantity phasing schedule. If the schedule is for <br /> a certain number per year, they would do that, but are requesting : ' <br /> the flexibility to build in different locations throughout the <br /> project depending on a buyer' s site selection. <br /> .�gls <br /> Art Traczyk responded by referring to the Plan indicating t <br /> proposed construction in two different locations, allowing thei�� 19 <br /> possibility for future construction in a third location between <br /> the first two. His concern is for the possibility of being ,{ <br /> -26- 4u,� <br /> n <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.