08/09/2023 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

This transcript was exported on Aug 21,2023 -view latest version to be modified or amended in that decision.It wasn't asking for condition three to be stricken from the decision.What it was asking for was an interpretation of what that language meant.The board acknowledged that that language had an ambiguity In It,whether or not the limitation on completion, the 10 year limitation applied to both components of the project,the multi-family units and the single family units,or just to one component of the project,the mufti-family units.There is nothing to be amended.it was simply an interpretation of existing language.That condition continued after 1992.The interpretation that was provided by the board was that the language of condition three only imposed a deadline for completion on completion of the multi-family units,not the single family units. Q ;d : And this,this,the building commissioner,this board has acted consistently with that interpretation. Again,not an amendment,not a modification of the decision.Because the condition exists,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 three,as interpreted by this board,has a 10 year termination date.It does not have a 10 yeartermination date as to the single family unit.As to concern about whether or not there Is advertisement and ability for the public to participate in the 1992 public hearing,there was a public hearing.it was a appealable decision by the board.There's,there's nothing to have prevented someone from asserting,suggesting that,uh,or there was no strategy here for the applicant to have Insulated itself from appeal as a result of that interpretation.That subsequently was applied for a modification in 2002,again,to change the location of where multifamily units and single family units could be built on the approved master plan.That required both going back to the planning board and coming here again to the Z B A for an Interpretation that that special permit continued to exist. Speaker i So if i Speaker 20 May,yes. Speaker 1 So you're saying that the decision of February 20th,1980 was in reference to single family owned? Speaker 20 No,I'm not,I'm not saying that. Speaker 1(02:�')?:J,08): Alright.So then the heart of it,which is par number three.Mm-hmm.<affirmative>is in reference to single and multi,is that correct? Speaker 20 That is correct. Speaker 1(. J: Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals-8092023(Completed 09/21/23) Page 66 of 73 Transcript by _ _