8/28/1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Attorney Henchy: The Decision also says that the Plan provides for a well located good balance of dwelling unit densities and commercial facilities and amenities . So there must . . .must have been, I would suggest, some indication on the Plan of what the expected balances between residential and commercial dwelling spaces would have been. Uh. . . I think it ' s easy to answer it uh. . .on the Plan. Building Inspector: I have a copy of the Land Court Plan. The Chairman: Then that ' s probably it . Is that made by the same people that it referred to? Building inspector: Right . The Chairman: So then, that' s probably the plan. Is . . . is it just a topographical plan showing the parcels of land with two foot contour lines? (Reference was made to Land Court Plan dated January 16, 1964, entitled Cluster Subdivision Plan. ) Attorney Jeanne McKnight : May I point out, Mr. Chairman. . . The Chairman: Yes . Attorney McKnight : . . .The uh. . . the 1964 zoning Board of Appeals Decision refers to a Plan entitled, Cluster Zoning Plan a portion of New Seabury, Mashpee, Massachusetts, by George E. Hayes, Registered Land Surveyor. And in the Decision uh. . . the Board um. . . says that the plan presented to the Board has been prepared with two foot contour (inaudible) entire area. The Chairman: Right . The Chairman: Yes, sir? Attorney Fox: Sir, if I may address a couple of these issues it may shed some light on it . Uh. . .Number one, here is a copy of Judge Nelson' s Decision that references the 171 uh. . . zoning Amendment . I can' t imagine a Superior Court Judge talking about a 171 Zoning Amendment uh. . . excuse me, that ' s 1971 Agreement modifying restrictions and talking about it, which it does at length in here, just as he talks about the 164 Special Permit when he upheld it . And. . .and not think that it ' s valid. And he knew. . . and he cites exactly what happened, that Town Meeting passed it, that the Selectmen signed it and the Zoning Board did not . And secondly, on the issue of uh. . . it was brought up relative to uh. . . the Selectmen having no power. . .not having the power to make a statement in the uh. . . 1995 Agreement modifying restrictions. Uh. . .what the uh. . .relative to uh. . . this being a substantial modification, not a substantial modification, let me refer to the Building .Inspector' s letter, a copy of which -14- 1' r E: