My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/01/1988 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
06/01/1988 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2025 3:36:22 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 11:57:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/01/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Donald H. Angus, Esq. <br /> P.O. Box 270 <br /> Buzzards Bay, MA 02732 <br /> 6, 1988 <br /> Joseph Reardon, Esq. JUN <br /> Town Counsel <br /> P.O. Box 978 <br /> Hyannis, MA 02649 <br /> c <br /> Dear Mr. Reardon: <br /> I represent Drs. E. Arthur Robinson and Ralph G. Angus with <br /> regard to their plan submitted recently on their behalf by their <br /> engineers, Holmes and McGrath of Falmouth, MA. <br /> The Mashpee Planning Board has raised an issue on the manner of <br /> mailing, claiming that the plan was mailed to the Planning Board <br /> directly; the board asserts such mailing was not in compliance <br /> with Chapter 41, Sec. 81 0 which provides for submittal of a plan <br /> "...sent by registered mail to the planning board, care of the <br /> city or town clerk. If so mailed, the date of mailing shall be <br /> the date of submission of the plan." As the enclosed receipts <br /> attest, four envelopes were mailed to the town including a copy <br /> of the application to the town clerk. The Town Planner considers <br /> that it was necessary for the plan to be mailed care of the town <br /> clerk so that it could be "logged in, " even though he K <br /> acknowledges receipt of the plan and Mashpee has a full time <br /> Planning Department. <br /> We submit that such an argument is specious because the statute <br /> provides in the last sentence that "If so mailed, (by registered <br /> mail (Chap. 4, Sec. 7 par. 44 substitutes certified mail) the <br /> date of mailing shall be the date of submission of the plan." it <br /> is the date of mailing, as shown by the receipt of mailing that <br /> controls, not the date that it was received by the town. The <br /> ultimate purpose is for the planning board to receive the plan, <br /> which it did! <br /> i <br /> To illustrate how unimportant and directory is the provision that <br /> the plan be mailed "care of the town clerk," I attach hereto a <br /> copy of M.P.S . vol. 28A, Park, Sec. 847 , pp. 304 and 305 , <br /> particularly the top of the page 305, "A plan may be submitted by <br /> delivery at a meeting if the planning board or Ily mailing <br /> registered mail to them. If sent, the date of mailing is the <br /> date of submission." The author does not even mention "care of <br /> the town clerk." As you know, the courts often quote the authors <br /> I <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.