6/1/2017 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1, 2017 Mr. Blaisdell commented and read Item 9 from the Comprehensive Permit that when the original ruling was made by the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve this Comprehensive Permit, one of the conditions that he believes that was incorporated in that approval was that the five (5) affordable units as designed by the applicant shall be restricted in perpetuity, as low or moderate income housing for sale to household earnings. He said that when the original ruling was made that condition was specifically placed in the ruling and making a change to that original ruling, having all five (5) units in perpetuity he has to determine whether this is considered substantial or insubstantial and the Board also needs to make this determination if this is changing the original ruling. The Board told the applicants that this condition was written in the Comprehensive Permit dated May 5, 2004. The Board provided the homeowners with the Decision and pointed out Item 9 on page 5. Chairman Furbush asked Board Member, Scott Goldstein if he had any comments and Mr. Goldstein replied that he did not have any comments and will wait to vote. Paul McBrien said he had a conversation with Gael from the Housing Assistance Corporation, she said that the low income housing there is no problem finding a buyer, but the moderate income housing they have trouble finding qualified buyers. Board Member, Dom DeBarros did not have any comments but asked for clarification on the difference between substantial and insubstantial. Chairman Furbush explained -to Mr. DeBarros the difference between substantial and insubstantial and the reason the Board is required to vote as it pertains to the specific request from the applicant. Associate Member, Brad Pittsley said it's a matter of serious consideration. He does have his own opinion but believes he will not be asked to vote. He believes it's a substantial modification because of the removal of the restriction off the deed that was put in perpetuity, and that the original agreement should still stand. Mr. Blaisdell gave his opinion stating that he believes it's a substantial change given the Item 9 of the Decision stating in perpetuity. Chairman Furbush gave his opinion referring to the Decision of the Comprehensive Permit filed with Barnstable Land Court as of 11-23-2004. He pointed out on Page 3, Item IV under Decisions and Conditions. He also read 49 of the Decision. Mr. Furbush said that if this clause was not in the Decision, it probably would have been denied, and removing that clause would be considered a substantial modification. Chairman Furbush said that there were not more comments and asked Mr. Bonvie to make a motion. Mr. Bonvie made a motion that the request in a letter dated May 24, 2017 by Katie and Paul McBrien which is outlined in the letter, which would in fact amend, modify or change the Comprehensive Permit and contents thereto would be considered a substantial change. 4