Laserfiche WebLink
back in 1964 . And we suggest in the most emphatic terms that the <br /> Board of Selectmen has absolutely no power over this whatsoever. <br /> To amend the Special Permit granted in 1964, pursuant to Section <br /> F D and 5 of the Zoning By-Law absent of prior decision by this <br /> Board that the amendment is in the public good, that it would not <br /> substantially detriment (inaudible) of the intent and purposes of <br /> the by-law and (inaudible) of our interests, that it did not hold <br /> any threat to the pub. . . to the public water supply wells that <br /> presently exist in those areas. And it is only in our view, <br /> after this Board makes those determinations that the Board of <br /> Selectmen can then go forward and change any of the underlying <br /> uh. . .real estate restrictions, which are in effect, where the <br /> rubber hits the road with regard to the Special Permit. <br /> And I . . . I don' t know if I am articulating this well enough <br /> because I 'm seeing at least a couple of blank stares coming back <br /> from the Board Members . But because of the way this Special <br /> Permit and the (inaudible) for the Zoning By-Law was structured, <br /> you need first Zoning Board of Appeals action to authorize an <br /> agreement between the Town and the developer (inaudible) and deed <br /> restrictions and then you need deed restrictions in which, in <br /> fact, make binding upon future owners the conditions of the Board <br /> of Appeals votes in the Special Permit . what the Board of <br /> Selectmen have done in 1995, is to go completely backwards in <br /> that process. In essence make themselves the judge and jury. <br /> Make themselves into the Board of Appeals and enter into an <br /> agreement purporting to amend the Zoning Special Permit without <br /> the concurrence of this Board, without any review by this Board, <br /> Um. . . and in our view, with the contravention of public good, <br /> mainly public water supply wells that exist in that area. Um. . . <br /> that is the gist of our argument to you. <br /> The relief that we seek is a ruling from the Board along the <br /> following lines . To the extent that the May 22, 1995 <br /> uh. . .agreement purports to amend the Special Permit, we ask that <br /> Board to rule that it does not . The Special Permit is not <br /> amended until such time as the Applicant comes to the Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals pursuant to General Laws C.48 Section I in the <br /> Zoning By-Law and seeks an amendment of 1964 Special Permit in <br /> conformance with the Zoning By-Law. Secondly, to the extent that <br /> this agreement seeks to authorize four hundred and twenty-five <br /> (425) dwelling units and three hundred and forty thousand <br /> (340, 000) square feet of commercial space within Section 5 of New <br /> Seabury, we ask the Board to rule that that is contrary to the <br /> Zoning By-Law because no Special Permit authorizing that has yet <br /> been issued. And that to that extent the agreement is null and <br /> void. And thirdly, to the extent that any permits have been <br /> issued. . .and I . . . I think it ' s fair to say that no permits have <br /> been issued. But to the extent that any permits have been issued <br /> or actions taken pursuant to this agreement insofar as it <br /> purports to be an amendment of the Special Permit, we ask the <br /> Board to rule that those are null and void and that they be <br /> rescinded. I think Mr. Hauck can speak to that . I . . . I really <br /> -4- <br />