02/09/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONfNTG BOARD OF APPEALS February 9, 2011 Minutes The following letter from Attorney Robert Finnegan was read into the record: RGBERT FrNrNEGAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 60 Lco airttingham ft*.y- )ra Floor adghton, Masswhusctra 02175 February S. 2011 Mashpcc Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 16 Great Neck Road North 1Nlashpce, Massachusetts 02649 re: Habitat For Hunttu7ity 40B Comprehensive Permit 24 Russell Road. Maa 120. Parcel 129A Dear Madam/Sir: (617)78]-1024 Exit 227 Fax: (617) 782-139S c�mail: rCuxbQa vt+i>an.net I write to as counsel for Steven and Joyce Hynds of 333.Monomoscoy Road who are the direct abutters to the location for the proposed project referenced above. It is our intention to provide the Board with the abutters' perspective and ask that sufficient time be allotted to this matter so that all interests may be presented and taken into consideration before a final decision is rendered. Although my involvement admittedly comes at the proverbial I 1 °i hour, it is non - the -less timely for the purposes of examining the review process to date and respectively requesting that the Board take the time necessary to insure a fair andjust review as the process moves forward. From the beginning this process was writhe with questions and potential legal red flags. These included my client's belief that there was insufficient notice to abutters for both the Selectman's 3v9eeting and the Community Preservation Conunittee ("CDC") as well as the use of the taxpayer funded Community Preservation Committee money to fund a project that so many taxpayers oppose. The absence of notice to my clients of the Selectman's Meeting left my clients and many of their neighbors appalled to learn that this project had been presented to the Selectmen as being without opposition. Moreover, absent notice, none of tine concerned taxpayers had the opportunity to provide comments to the Board prior to its decision — a decision to deem this project a `friendly 40B". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Notice for the CDC hearing was similarly absent leaving little opportunity for opposing opinion to be voiced. This is Of particular note on the issue of the role of CDC funds in this project since the $25,000.00 approved to support the project is identical to the $25,000.00 purchase price for the property in question. Does this mean that this project is contingent upon tine outcome of the vote of the proposed warrant article slated for the May Annual Town \9eetine? More importantly, the conspicuous lack of taxpayer input perpetuated the misperception that this project is without opposition thereby casting an even more dubious