|
This transcript was exported on Aug 21,2023 -view latest version'
<br /> willing to listen to any other aspects or any other arguments or input that you want to give tome and
<br /> this board to maybe sway that opinion,but I'm not heard.
<br /> Speaker 4
<br /> Well,again,the,It's,you know,I know you,you don't want to deaf with the 2002 issue,but again,that
<br /> board reiterated the same thing.That It had not lapsed Well,
<br /> Speaker 1(L:r;;°!,�;,T ):
<br /> That board was wrong also,because,you know what?it lapsed in 92.Because you know what,in 199Z
<br /> they should have a right to that lapsed in 90.Yeah.90.it's In 80 actually.Well,somewhere exactly 10
<br /> years after I,yeah.So in 1990,that permit lapsed because 80,it was redone.So 1990,that permit,
<br /> because they didn't come in and say,would like to ask for an extension,advertise It,ask for an
<br /> extension,put it on the,you know,they didn't do that.They asked for an Interpretation in 92,2 years
<br /> after it actually lapsed already.Well,the court should have said,sorry.Uh,you're beyond your 10 years.
<br /> Right.You're beyond your 10 years.So we can't find any of this.We can't Interpret it as not,you know,
<br /> not in IT existence,because your permit's not good at this paint anyway.
<br /> Speaker 4(fit 04 5:
<br /> Well,that's not what they did.They said it was good,Yeah,
<br /> Speaker 1('
<br /> I agree.That's,I think it's a failed decision and its a bad decision.Two for two reasons.Number one,
<br /> they should have said between you,you,you got the permit In 80.So in 1990,the permit lapsed.Okay.
<br /> You had 10 years to finish.You haven't,you didn't finish yet.So it lapsed.And now you're asking us to
<br /> do an interpretation in 92 that says that did that paragraph three didn't exist.They should have said,
<br /> first of all,you're beyond the 10 years,so more than exists,you don't have a permit.And number two,
<br /> number three,minimum,they should have said,you know what?The language is pretty dear.And if you
<br /> want to try and modify it,file for a modification,bring it to this board and we'll hear it.But actually,they
<br /> couldn't do that in 92.'cause it had already lapd And they did,they didn't do It.
<br /> Speaker 4(,?,t,�..%0):
<br /> Yeah,but they didn't in 2002.And I know you don't want to hear it,but,and you may be saying It's too
<br /> late,but the board,there was a modification.The plan,the plan was changed.You know
<br /> P
<br /> Speaker 1(
<br /> What,maybe that's another remand.I don't know.I maybe we'll deal with that at a later date.I can tell
<br /> you that,you know,it's my opinion that It lapsed in 90 and R certainly lapsed In 92.But that laps in 90.
<br /> 'cause the 10 years have already gone by at nine 90.And certainly it lapsed In 92 when they just
<br /> would've asked an opinion of this board.And,and the board's opinion in 92 was wrong.Okay.Ron,
<br /> we're gonna,yeah,this Is just going Ron.Ron,anyone else in the audience please?Yes,ma'am.Thank
<br /> you.Good,
<br /> Speaker 20
<br /> Good evening.Mr.Commissioner members of the board,Kate Carter for the applicant,just to clarify,
<br /> there was no need for an application for a modification in 1992.The applicant wasn't asking for anything
<br /> Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals-9092023(Completed 0812l/23) Page 65 of 73
<br /> Transcript by
<br />
|