Laserfiche WebLink
IIII�Iil• <br /> fit'+'Ij� <br /> interest protected by the act in the regional policy plan. <br /> And the burden is on an Applicant to �''` <br /> PP prove that they meet <br /> the substantial compliance test. Attorney Ford made reference <br /> to the Plan pointing out the buildings, the size of buildings , <br /> that are to be constructed and stated that " . . . if this is inr'r"y�'' <br /> substantial compliance, it seems to be a huge stretch. " <br /> r <br /> Attorney Ford suggested that the Cape Cod Commission Act r.,i <br /> specifically provides for a discretionary determination that can <br /> be done fairy expeditiously and it can be done at the request of <br /> the Planning Board who can send over to the Cape Cod Commission .' nh in a formal request, the plans attached to the original Special <br /> Permit and the plans that are before you tonight, and ask for a <br /> jurisdictional determination as to whether or not that is in <br /> 4' <br /> substantial compliance. The Cape Cod Commission will then look <br /> at it and make a determination and it can be resolved once and <br /> for all as to whether or not it is a DRI . <br /> ,It ; <br /> The Chairman asked Attorney Ford whether the Applicant also <br /> has the ability to go to the Commission; to which Attorney Ford <br /> answered, "Yes. Either the Applicant or the Planning Board can <br /> make that test. " Attorney Ford said he was suggesting that it is <br /> open to the Planning Board, as well as the Applicant. <br /> Attorney Ford said he felt it was kind of discretionary for I <br /> anyone, including Mr. Butler, to give an opinion as to whether <br /> this is in substantial compliance with the Special Permit such <br /> that it continues to enjoy the protection from the Cape Cod <br /> Commission Act. And there is a definitive way to find out. AndA..I <br /> that' s what the jurisdictional determination vehicle is all t <br /> about. <br /> Attorney Ford then addressed Mr. Butler' s narrative <br /> outlining the chronology as to how the rights under this Permit <br /> were exercised. He noted that Attorney Butler laid out all the <br /> things that were done and the time period in which they were <br /> accomplished and comes to the conclusion that clearly the <br /> statutory requirements of 40A, Section 9 were met, requiring lil <br /> substantial use of the property or the commencement of <br /> construction. There is another requirement; that once it starts, <br /> it has to continue as expeditiously as is reasonable. There has IWI <br /> to be on-going activity, or the rights under a Special Permit <br /> lapse. <br /> I <br /> I <br /> Attorney Ford further stated that he felt it was not enough rill <br /> for the Board simply to get evidence that there was a use and a !' <br /> commencement of construction prior to the time the Special Permit <br /> would have lapsed, but also on and after that. That indeed there ��? <br /> has been continuing construction such that the Special Permit <br /> being discussed and attempting to modify tonight, is still in '� �9 ' <br /> full force and effect. Attorney Ford encouraged the Planning Ir <br /> Board to investigate this issue. <br /> -24- <br /> l :, . <br /> i <br />