8/28/1996 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Board of Appeals was completely ignored. That ' s the piece that we say should have been addressed. And we say because it wasn' t addressed it invalidates the 1995 agreement to the extent that it purports to change the Special Permit in any way. The Special Permit in 1964, based on the Plan which showed maximum number of dwelling units in New. . . Section 5 to be twenty-five (25) and the maximum number of commercial square feet to be one hundred and eighty thousand (180, 000) . Unless this Board makes a finding the changes contemplated by the 1995 Agreement are in conformance with the public good and not a substantial detriment to the intent and purposes of the Zoning By-Law and so forth. And it has a right to condition those as well . Unless the Board makes those findings and votes a decision approving the 1995 agreement, it is our position that it does not constitute in and of itself an amendment to the Zoning By-Law and doesn' t invest any rights in the New Seabury Corporation until such time as the Board takes that action. Um. . . that' s what we are essentially saying to you tonight . That ' s why we are before you. The subsequent reason, of course, is what you heard about the wells . I agree with the Chair that none of that is really before the Board tonight . That ' s the subsequent reason as to why we' re here tonight . The Chairman: We all live here, so we ' re all concerned naturally. . .believe in something we can make a decision on. Attorney Henchy: If you look at that 1964 Zoning By-Law. . . every plan of land is submitted and if the Board finds the development of the land shown on the plan will fulfill the spirit and intent of the by-law without substantial detriment to the public good and if the Town gets a deed, then these folks get a Special Permit . That ' s what happened. You can' t amend the Special Permit without dealing with both parts of the required. . . both Zoning Board of Appeals action and Town Meeting/Selectmen action in order to change the interest in real estate. Thank you. The Chairman recognized Attorney Fox. Attorney Fox: Again, with all due respect to Mr. Henchy, uh. . .we have three different Town Counsels, two of them were judges from 170 to 190, 195 and 196 who said this was the proper procedure. We have a Judge Nelson who reviewed that procedure and had no problem with that procedure. And now, twenty-one years . . . twenty-five years after the 171 Town Meeting vote and six years after the 1990 Town vote the Water District is asking you to forget about all that stuff and say that it was all wrong. Uh. . . and that just simply is not the case. And with all due respect, I agree with Mr. Henchy that. . .about the water wells, that ' s not really before you. And there ' s a lot of other things that were said to you tonight that ' s also not before you, given what the advertisement said. The advertisement said, " . . .Please -20-