|
This transcript was exported on Aug 21,2023-view latest version°
<br /> Speaker 20(, 1 r '%'):
<br /> Well,as I was saying,there was no modification necessary.The language was,uh,ambiguous.The board
<br /> acknowledged it was ambiguous,and it provided an interpretation of an existing permit,an existing
<br /> permit that hadn't been changed and identified what there was in terms of a termination deadline for a
<br /> component of the project,the multi only,and stated that it's never been the policy for this board to
<br /> impose a deadline for the completion of single families.And has acted consistently since that and
<br /> reliance on its own Interpretation,both in the 2002 modification and decision that was provided,and
<br /> then subsequently in the issuance of,of building permits under the same special permit.Today.I think
<br /> that I,1 understand Mr.Chairman,that you don't believe that,um,the application or granting of special,
<br /> of building permits on the same special permit that we're here before is relevant,but I think that from
<br /> an equitable,it's not
<br /> Speaker 1
<br /> Relevant in the
<br /> Speaker 20 L v ):
<br /> Remand.It is.Um,again,I
<br /> Speaker !'I 11_fir,/,):
<br /> See nothing from our town council that tells us we have to,we have to spend the time and effort from
<br /> that.But,
<br /> Speaker 20
<br /> So,so can 1,can I respond to that?
<br /> Speaker 1
<br /> If,if you can just cut it short as you could then please.
<br /> Speaker 20( %P3).
<br /> Um,the remand specifically required the board to consider the 1992 decision because it had failed to do
<br /> so in its prior hearing.There's nothing that precludes the board.And Mr.Costello said as much,there's
<br /> nothing to preclude this board from provi from considering all of the evidence that's presented by the
<br /> applicant.Agreed,agreed.And,uh,in the existing record.And we've presented that in our remand
<br /> package.
<br /> Speaker 1 2: 2):
<br /> 1 would agree with that.And I'll just state the following and then we'll move out to someone else,
<br /> honest,because I think it's important to be on record.Um,its my opinion that the 1992,um,that the,
<br /> yeah,the 1980 document was,uh,special permit modification slash decision was in reference to singles
<br /> In multiples.I think we agree,and I also believe that number three was in reference to singles and
<br /> multis.That being said,the applicant,the in reference to the special permit,had until 1990 to finish his
<br /> singles and mulds;and whatever took place after that.So be it.And I think we can,we need to move on.
<br /> Speaker 20( .- -'. ):
<br /> Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals-8092023 (Completed 09/21/23) Page 69 of 73
<br /> Transcript by
<br />
|