Laserfiche WebLink
which this Article was presented is highly inappropriate; and <br /> that a natter of this magnitude should have been brought forward <br /> by the Planning Board. <br /> Attorney Dunning cited several other reasons that the <br /> laming Board, in his opinion, should recommend against this <br /> Article in addition to the aforementioned procedural issue. <br /> At this point the matter is moot as the zoning for this <br /> particular parcel of land has been frozen pursuant to Section <br /> 40A section 6. A zoning change will not have any effect on <br /> this property until such time as the protection period has <br /> expired, which would be the year 2010 at the earliest. <br /> Attorney Dunning believes there are inconsistencies with <br /> prior actions taken by the Planning Board. He reiterated this <br /> site has been previously referred to the Cape God Commission by <br /> the Planning Hoard on three different occasions, filing of the <br /> Preliminary Plan, Subdivision Plan, and the pending supermarket <br /> project. He stated it is inconsistent -four the Planning Board to <br /> send a proposal to the Cape God Commission while working to <br /> change the actual zoning which applies to that land. <br /> The Chairman interjected at this paint clarifying the <br /> citizens of Mashpee have the right to submit Citizen Petition <br /> Articles to which Attorney Dunning agreed) . Anyone wishing to <br /> present an Article accompanied by the required ten signatures has <br /> a right to be heard (again, Attorney Dunning agreed) , which is <br /> the purpose and function of this Public Hearing, to allow <br /> Petitioners of the Article to be heard. <br /> Attorney Dunning stated he is addressing his comments to the <br /> Planning Board regarding their recommendation of said Article <br /> under -discussion. He agreed that Petitioners have every right to <br /> put the proposed Article forth. He is asking that the Planning <br /> Hoard not recommend said Article to the Town Meeting for the <br /> reasons he has stated. <br /> Attorney Dunning continued by classifying this action as <br /> spot zoning as there exist seven panels within the Town under <br /> the same zoning. However, only two panels have been -selected <br /> for a re-zoning. There has not been the benefit of extensive <br /> Public Hearings where this issue could have been discussed at <br /> length. <br /> Attorney Dunning then pointed out the proposed Article would <br /> prove to shift certain permit granting authority from the Zoning <br /> Board of Appeals to the Planningyd. He questioned whether or <br /> i <br /> not the Zoning Board of Appeals s aware of the contents of the <br /> proposed Article, and whether or not they have had any <br /> opportunity to respond. <br /> Attorney Dunning stated the process has been premature and <br /> -8- <br />