My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/27/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
01/27/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:05:53 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:49:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
regulations regarding denitrification. They were going to tie this in to hey, "They <br /> can't comply with the letter of the regulations because they don't have the "owner's <br /> Permission" to utilize this property." on the one hand, you an agency of the owner <br /> of the property, which doesn't necessarily bode well for thein. Yet on the other hand, <br /> there was nothing wrong. It was not a bad faith or an unreasonable position for us to <br /> tale. what a judge may very morel l look at was wel l what was de facto the negative <br /> environmental impact going to-be *f they were allowed to build out the additional I 1 <br /> or whatever houses given the fact that this land is permanently restricted as would <br /> have been re iced under the regulations had the owner ranted the authorization. If <br /> � g g <br /> the judge concluded that there'was really no environmental downside or negative <br /> impact to this particular situation. He may very well rule that that land could be put <br /> to use. Noir if a judge ruled that way and there.was a court.decision. That could <br /> have a far broader <br /> impact in terms of precedent than this board merely trying to <br /> work this thing out. That was something that they needed to consider. <br /> Ms. Grady agreed with him and that was her whole thing. She.had conservation land <br /> across the street from her. So, could someone use that? <br /> Mr. Costello stated that the difference would he that the conservation land across the <br /> street was not acquired by the town and not so restricted pertinent to or in <br /> conjunction with the approval of the establishment of her home. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that it might have been. That was hover a lot of the open space <br /> came about. It was acquired by the planning board to do cluster subdivisions and <br /> provided green space. <br /> Mr. Costello agreed with Mr. Harrington and added that the thing that he didn't-like <br /> from a legal perspective if they tried this ease was that they aright he able to get the <br /> DEP to come in and say that it was okay to do this. It said in the letter that <br /> tentatively the DEPdetermined that this land a.s possibly suitable and adequate f or <br /> consideration under the circumstances. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that at this point a settlement rather than a court judgment <br /> would-be a... <br /> Mr. Costello stated that a settlement was something that they could consider. But, <br /> the settlement should be on terms that they fel protect the Board's interest and <br /> protect them going down the road. which is why dropping this on thein now he was <br /> not asking for any feedback right now. But, it was something that they should <br /> consider and maybe within the next month. Actually, within the next couple they <br /> would discuss this again. <br /> Ms. Carron asked if a settlement could he so cut and dry that nobody else could <br /> come back and pursue this same avenue. or was it so unique that it was unlikely to <br /> ever happen again? <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.