6/30/2014 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes

Home Browse Search

LETTER TO THE EDITOR ,lune 2 , 2014 Upon review f the letter issued to the media and the Town last week by individuals who wry property in the vicinity of the proposed Richard Cook aquaculture grant, the members of the Mashpee Board of Selectmen feel compelled to offer a response. We believe that the neighbors' letter distorts the facts which have been clearly established in the numerous administrative and judicial proceedings conducted to date with respect to this matter and attempts to wrongfully disparage the I ashpee Boards, Commissions and officers which have been involved in those proceedings as well as individuals who have had no involvement whatsoever). The comprehensive administrative and judicial records regarding the grant of an aquaculture license and the issuance of the order of conditions for this project, as well as the highly publicized rejection by the Massachusetts General Court of the proposed budget amendment seeking to establish a marine sanctuary in Popponesset Bay, speak largely for themselves. To date, those proceedings have established, as a matter oflaw and fact, that the actions by the Mashpee Board of Selectmen and Conservation Commission, pursuant to which approvals were granted to Richard Cook for the purpose of conducting an aquaculture operation within a 1.9 acre site in P opponesset Bay, were wholly justified by and consistent with relevant legal authorities. Notwithstanding the myriad protests and legal theories advanced by project opponents, the Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission and Zoning Board ofAppeals, upon careful consideration and deliberation on all relevant facts and legal principles, determined that the subject locus was an appropriate site for Mr. Cook's aquaculture activities. Upon n approval of an aquaculture licnse and order of conditions for the project, and denial of requested zoning enforcement relief, certain property owners who claimed to be aggrieved by these determinations elected to pursue judicial appeals of these decisions. Contrary to the allegations made in the neighbors' letter, the Town of Mshpee engaged its legal counsel to defend the actions f the � S r i, �' � � i Com i i � ZoningfAppea , all f which were deemed to be supported by the facts and compliant with the law; it did not expend taxpayer money in defense of Mr. Cook. The appeals filed with the Superior Court and the Land Court by multiple neighbors specifically named the Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals as the principal defendants in the litigation. Mr. Cook, as the applicant for the aquaculture license and the order of conditions, was named as a co-defendant in those proceedings as required by law. In essence, however, these appeals were challenges to the local authority and actions by Town of Mashpee agencies. It is, in our view, disingenuous and self-serving for the neighbors to complain about the expenditure of taxpayer money in defense of litigation which they initiated against the Town. The Plaintiffs, in an effort to reverse the decisions made by these Town Boards and Commission, have asserted myriad legal arguments which, to date, have been rejected not only by the Barnstable Superior Court but by the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth. The Board of Selectmen firmly believes that the interests of good government require that the Town undertake appropriate legal defense to challenges of decisions by its boards, commissions missions and officers when triose decisions are justified. The Selectmen strongly reject any suggestion or inference that the Town should merely"roll over" or concede its positions for the safe of"conserving public funds" when