My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/06/2022 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
04/06/2022 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 2:54:31 PM
Creation date
5/3/2022 10:11:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/06/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
16 Great Neck Road North <br />Nashpee, Nassachusetts o2649 <br />the agreement is and what the town get from this. There is nothing in writing that states the status of <br />this land, who owns it, and who has the right to sell it to NextGrid. <br />Mr. Callahan informed the Board that the assessor's database in Barnstable Court is two years lagging. <br />Mr. Lehrer has a theory. These are non -conforming lots. In the subdivision control law there's a statute <br />known as merger theory that avoids the perpetuity of non -conformity subsequent to a zoning change. In <br />1985 Mashpee zoning changed from 22,500 s.f. to 40,000 s.f. to 80,000 s.f. This mechanism frowned <br />upon a term known as checker boarding. A property owner who holds building lots prior to zoning <br />changes would convey lots to avoid merger theory. It would require two properties adjacent to one <br />another lacking land area, to obtain a building permit they would merge subsequent to zoning change if <br />held in common. Mr. Haney sat in his office and testified his ownership. <br />Ms. Barbee asked if that includes Lot 420, which as of December of 2021, is owned by Mr. Daniel <br />Dacey. <br />Mr. Lehrer commented that Lot 430 is of adequate size. The merger doctrine is clear on separate <br />ownership not necessarily being separate dominion and control. <br />Ms. Barbee was curious how one defines control if not ownership. <br />Mr. Lehrer gave the example of an owner of a trust and you're the trustee. <br />Ms. Barbee stated apparently Mr. Dacey is a trust. She herself has a trust on her own land but she has <br />control. <br />Mr. Lehrer is operating under speculation that Mr. Haney has some stake in the trust and power to <br />convey or sell. <br />Ms. Barbee asked if that raises questions for the future of this project. If there is a bylaw that passes <br />but the person who owns the land decides not to give it to NextGrid. The Select Board raised these <br />questions as well as a request for an environmental impact. That directly relates to her Article 35. <br />Mr. Lehrer commented if the town were to approve the zoning, a Special Permit will still be needed to <br />be issued on site, an application would include the deed and specified authorization of property owners <br />to proceed. Whether or not it may impact NextGrid as the buyer, he cannot contemplate. Ownership <br />would need to be satisfactory and the property owners would need to be aware and willing to allow a <br />purchaser or lessee to seek a permit from this Board. <br />Ms. Barbee stated it is disconcerting to feel like there is a lot of information still not in writing that people <br />were hoping would be in writing before a huge bylaw was given to someone who doesn't even show up <br />to discuss who will be beneficiary. It is confusing to see him petition then not petition, did he change his <br />mind? <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.