08/09/2023 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2023 Chairman Bonvie said that the Board needs to focus on the 1992 Decision that he believes was an opinion,not a modification. The only discussion should be for the remand. The request of the applicant was an interpretation and 1992 did not amend or alter the 1980 decision that refers to paragraph three (3) which contains the language minimum/maximum dates was not amended. The applicant asked for an interpretation, and this Board is not willing to agree with the past Board's interpretation because the language clearly states not to exceed 10 years. Attorney Kate Carter stated that there is no need for an application for a modification in 1992. The applicant wasn't asking for anything to modified or amended in that Decision. It wasn't asking for Condition 3 to be stricken from the Decision. They were asking for an interpretation of what that language meant. The Board acknowledged that the language had ambiguity; whether or not the limitation on completion, the ten year limitation applied to both components of the project of the multi-family units and the single-family units or just one component of the project. There was nothing to be amended it was simply an interpretation of the existing language. That condition continued after 1992. The interpretation that was provided by the Board was that the language of Condition 3 only imposed a deadline for completion of the multi-family units,not the single-family units. The condition continues to govern the development of the land. There are no additional multi-family units that can be built on this property because Condition 3 that was interpreted by this Board has a ten year termination. It does not have ten year termination for the single-family units. In regard to the concern for advertisement and the ability for the public to participate in the 1992 public hearing. There was a public hearing, and was appealable by the Board. There was no strategy that the applicant has insulated itself from appeal as a result of that interpretation. That subsequently was a file for a modification in 2022. Again, to change the location of where multi-family units and single-family units could be built on the approved master plan. That required both going back to the Planning Board, and to the Zoning Board for an interpretation of that Special Permit to continue. Chairman Bonvie wanted clarification that Condition 3 references single and multi-family units. In 1980 there was a modification of the permit, and Condition 3 was inserted and that language mentioned multi and single-family units had to be completed in 10 years. Ms. Carter mentioned that the 1980 is a modification of the 1973 Special Permit. There are a variety of reasons of that modification including the change in the makeup between multi-family units and single-family units, in addition, and the permit was extended. The Board imposed ten different conditions one of which was Condition 3 that the project shall be phased at least over a five year period, but not to exceed more than ten years. Subsequently, the applicant came before this Board and said that there is ambiguity. The ambiguity is which aspect of the project does apply. 14