For immediate release
Holliston’s issues Comprehensive Permit (with a smile!)
Green View Realty is pleased that the litigation on this proposed project has finally ended. The crowning decision was the SJC denial of further Appellate Review. The Town of Holliston ZBA, in a last ditch effort, attempted to issue a heavily conditioned Comprehensive Permit in an unusual early morning meeting but was succinctly advised by Attorney Robert Fasanella of Rubin & Rudman LLC that the Town of Holliston had no right to unilaterally issue a Comprehensive Permit. He informed them that they were “Out of Bullets” a statement also affirmed by the Town’s special Council Atty Mark Babrowski.
Green View Realty was able to negotiate the final Comprehensive Permit that was issued by the ZBA on November 30 2011. As if nothing had occurred, and with a smile, the ZBA chairman Henry Dellicker stated that there was nothing personal that the Board had considered in its seven year opposition to the project.
As in most things in life, timing plays an important role in the outcome of the best laid plans. Perhaps it is so here, and while the executive committees of Holliston may have believed that their unsubstantiated case was supported by their personal beliefs we now have the Comprehensive Permit with no onerous conditions affirming what we have committed to from the outset by using sound science, engineering and law abiding persistence to achieve our latest milestone. Projects like this are excellent stimulus for economic development that will help lead the economy out of the recession by creating jobs, especially for the Citizens of Holliston.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
SJC denies Holliston’s petition for Appellate Review
For immediate release
November 4, 2011
SJC denies Holliston’s petition for Appellate Review
Green View Realty is pleased that the litigation on this proposed project has finally ended. This crowning decision further ratifies our original stated mission to remediate the land, bring it to a condition of no significant risk and to build much needed affordable housing in the Town of Holliston.
As in most things in life, timing plays an important role in the outcome of the best laid plans. Perhaps it is so here, and while the executive committees of Holliston may have believed that their unsubstantiated case was supported by their personal beliefs we now have the Massachusetts State Housing Appeals Committee, and each of the three hierarchal courts, affirming what we have committed to from the outset by using sound science, engineering and law abiding methods to achieve our latest milestone. Given our own timing we would have jumped the gun into a declining economy. So in the end Holliston’s employment of the court system may have been our blessing in disguise. Projects like this are excellent stimulus for economic development that will help lead the economy out of the recession by creating jobs, especially for the Citizens of Holliston.
November 4, 2011
SJC denies Holliston’s petition for Appellate Review
Green View Realty is pleased that the litigation on this proposed project has finally ended. This crowning decision further ratifies our original stated mission to remediate the land, bring it to a condition of no significant risk and to build much needed affordable housing in the Town of Holliston.
As in most things in life, timing plays an important role in the outcome of the best laid plans. Perhaps it is so here, and while the executive committees of Holliston may have believed that their unsubstantiated case was supported by their personal beliefs we now have the Massachusetts State Housing Appeals Committee, and each of the three hierarchal courts, affirming what we have committed to from the outset by using sound science, engineering and law abiding methods to achieve our latest milestone. Given our own timing we would have jumped the gun into a declining economy. So in the end Holliston’s employment of the court system may have been our blessing in disguise. Projects like this are excellent stimulus for economic development that will help lead the economy out of the recession by creating jobs, especially for the Citizens of Holliston.
Strike four you're out! ...What did you say?
SJC denies Holliston’s petition for Appellate Review
Green View Realty is pleased that the litigation on this proposed project has finally ended. This crowning decision further ratifies our original stated mission to remediate the land, bring it to a condition of no significant risk and to build much needed affordable housing in the Town of Holliston.
As in most things in life, timing plays an important role in the outcome of the best laid plans. Perhaps it is so here, and while the executive committees of Holliston may have believed that their unsubstantiated case was supported by their personal beliefs we now have the Massachusetts State Housing Appeals Committee, and each of the three hierarchal courts, affirming what we have committed to do from the outset by using sound science, engineering and law abiding methods to achieve our latest milestone. Given our own timing we would have jumped the gun into a declining economy. So in the end Holliston’s employment of the court system may have been our blessing in disguise. Projects like this are excellent stimulus for economic development that will help lead the economy out of the recession by creating jobs, especially for the Citizens of Holliston.
Green View Realty is pleased that the litigation on this proposed project has finally ended. This crowning decision further ratifies our original stated mission to remediate the land, bring it to a condition of no significant risk and to build much needed affordable housing in the Town of Holliston.
As in most things in life, timing plays an important role in the outcome of the best laid plans. Perhaps it is so here, and while the executive committees of Holliston may have believed that their unsubstantiated case was supported by their personal beliefs we now have the Massachusetts State Housing Appeals Committee, and each of the three hierarchal courts, affirming what we have committed to do from the outset by using sound science, engineering and law abiding methods to achieve our latest milestone. Given our own timing we would have jumped the gun into a declining economy. So in the end Holliston’s employment of the court system may have been our blessing in disguise. Projects like this are excellent stimulus for economic development that will help lead the economy out of the recession by creating jobs, especially for the Citizens of Holliston.
Friday, October 7, 2011
HOLLISTON ATTEMPTS ONE MORE SWING
Well friends HOLLISTON wants to try again. On October 6, 2011 the Town of Holliston ignored the rules of baseball and is attempting to take a 0 for 3 record (Three strikes and you are out!) and attempt one more chance to overturn the Housing Appeals Committee decision to issue a Comprehensive Permit to the Cedar Ridge Estates project. It will either come out 0 for 4 without getting a walk or another chance to defeat us in the courts.
This is a petition for a review of the Appeals Court Order before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Customarily the Supreme Court will hear issues that are novel, ground breaking or landmark issues that affect the entire State of Massachusetts.
While I can understand the desperation of a death row inmate to desire a hearing before the SJC in hopes for a miracle decision, I wonder if the Town Government will ever recognize that so long as Green View Realty adheres to the Law, the Law permits the project to pursue its objectives of developing and building on the Land.
As expected the Town has requested that the SJC hear the matter. The Town makes three arguments that the Town suggests are "novel" legal issues which should be heard. These are:
1. Did the HAC apply the correct standard in determining that GVR met its prima facie case requirement;
2. Did the appeals court err in determining that the HAC properly determined that the local bylaws were not applicable; and
3. Did the appeals court err in determining that the ZBA did not present evidence to show any harm from GVR's request for waivers.
None of these issues are questions that the ZBA has not already tried to raise. We do not believe that they raise any novel issue or any issue that was not already properly addressed. We will draft an opposition to the request and file it next week. The opposition will explain why each issue is not novel, how the Town continues to twist the issues each time they lose and show our position on the facts of the case to the SJC. As stated a response from the SJC can come as early as 30 days so we can look for something in early November from the SJC.
No longer is the fight based upon the technical issues of the required remediation it apparently has become a political battles of wills.
Apparently Holliston is more concerned about the infringement of their Wet Land By Laws than they are concerned about meeting their Affordable Housing Mandate.
This is a petition for a review of the Appeals Court Order before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Customarily the Supreme Court will hear issues that are novel, ground breaking or landmark issues that affect the entire State of Massachusetts.
While I can understand the desperation of a death row inmate to desire a hearing before the SJC in hopes for a miracle decision, I wonder if the Town Government will ever recognize that so long as Green View Realty adheres to the Law, the Law permits the project to pursue its objectives of developing and building on the Land.
As expected the Town has requested that the SJC hear the matter. The Town makes three arguments that the Town suggests are "novel" legal issues which should be heard. These are:
1. Did the HAC apply the correct standard in determining that GVR met its prima facie case requirement;
2. Did the appeals court err in determining that the HAC properly determined that the local bylaws were not applicable; and
3. Did the appeals court err in determining that the ZBA did not present evidence to show any harm from GVR's request for waivers.
None of these issues are questions that the ZBA has not already tried to raise. We do not believe that they raise any novel issue or any issue that was not already properly addressed. We will draft an opposition to the request and file it next week. The opposition will explain why each issue is not novel, how the Town continues to twist the issues each time they lose and show our position on the facts of the case to the SJC. As stated a response from the SJC can come as early as 30 days so we can look for something in early November from the SJC.
No longer is the fight based upon the technical issues of the required remediation it apparently has become a political battles of wills.
Apparently Holliston is more concerned about the infringement of their Wet Land By Laws than they are concerned about meeting their Affordable Housing Mandate.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Appeals Court upholds Housing Appeals Committee
On Friday September 15th the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the lower court decision that affirmed the Housing Appeals Committee’s decision to issue a “Comprehensive Permit” to Green View Realty, LLC for the construction of 200 Condominium Town Homes to be known as Cedar Ridge Estates. This adjudication ends the legal battle waged by the Town of Holliston in an attempt to block the project. The Appeals Court panel of three Judges unanimously issued a well documented decision ordering the Town of Holliston to issue the “Comprehensive Permit”
This action legitimizes the project, clearing the way to pursue the three permits needed to obtain the building permit. The MEPA process sets out the plan for remediation. The Notice of Intent (NOI) addresses the Wetlands on the property under the guidelines set by the Wetlands Protection Act and Waste Water discharge permit required to process and discharge waste water. This process is expected to take up to one year assuming that the Town of Holliston will continue to use (or misuse) the process that allows them to participate in the permitting process.
This ruling also clears the way for new capital and the entertainment of suitors that desire to obtain 200 building permits. Timing could be just about right to start building in late 2012 or by spring of 2013. Now the economy dictates the timing for this project.
See the entire decision at www.greenviewrealty.com under “PUBLIC FORUM”
This action legitimizes the project, clearing the way to pursue the three permits needed to obtain the building permit. The MEPA process sets out the plan for remediation. The Notice of Intent (NOI) addresses the Wetlands on the property under the guidelines set by the Wetlands Protection Act and Waste Water discharge permit required to process and discharge waste water. This process is expected to take up to one year assuming that the Town of Holliston will continue to use (or misuse) the process that allows them to participate in the permitting process.
This ruling also clears the way for new capital and the entertainment of suitors that desire to obtain 200 building permits. Timing could be just about right to start building in late 2012 or by spring of 2013. Now the economy dictates the timing for this project.
See the entire decision at www.greenviewrealty.com under “PUBLIC FORUM”
Common Sense: The Case for Cedar Ridge Estates
Common Sense: the Case for Cedar Ridge Estates
As a young man, I was able to work for a man named Charlie Bird. I was about 16, still attending Holliston High School. While working for Charlie we went out to the back 40 one day to cut firewood that he harvested from his land. Distinctly, I remember the enormous pile of tires that stretched in a long row for quite a distance. Charlie believed that used tires would one day fetch him a small fortune. It was an impressive accumulation of tires and by some accounts more than 230,000 of them. Leaving Holliston and home, having graduated with honors, for the United States Naval Academy in 1970 I soon forgot about the tires and the Bird Property. I mention this because Holliston, a town I loved so well has changed!
Many years later I heard that the tire pile was involved in a nasty fire set by vandals and that the property was contaminated by the illegal dumping of solid waste materials and volatile organic chemicals brought from two local businesses. Charlie had died and the property lay fallow and contaminated.
In 2004, as a Financial Advisor, the Trustees of the property contacted me to assist them in finding a suitable investor to create value in the property. The Town of Holliston had agreed, at the suggestion of the DEP, to solicit by formal Request for Response, a builder to purchase and develop the property for an amount sufficient to settle a super lien placed on the land by the DEP and for the contamination cleanup discovered after the tire fire. The Town of Holliston was to receive $250,000 to reimburse the cost of removing the tires for safety sake.
That is when I became involved again because it seemed the right thing to do. The Town was soliciting developers to build on the property, the Town would receive a substantial benefit and the State would recover some of its clean up costs. Believing that the land was worth more than its foreclosure value I assisted the Birds in securing an investor developer to purchase the land and building project solicited by Holliston.
Somewhere along the line, the Town disingenuously decided that the public solicitation was no longer on the table, as I am sure that their intention was under the table, having targeted one particular builder for the project. What a shame! The Town was to receive $250,000.00, a cleaned up property and new housing. By now the Trustees, having an obligation to preserve and protect the value of the property for the beneficiaries, was forced to seek permits to build on the Land as this was the only way to recover enough value to satisfy the State’s Lien and the Towns recovery of costs. At Town Meeting, organized voters denied a warrant article to rezone the property for construction of age-restricted homes for our towns over age 55 population. The only solution became an application to construct homes some of which would be afforded to modest income earning families like Teachers, Fireman, Civil Servants and single mothers needing a home for their broken families, a way to live in the Town they worked for and loved. Instead, Holliston mounted a six year protracted fight to stop any housing development on the Land. As leader of this battle, I was surprised by the neighboring animosity now around me.
After a prolonged 20 month Public Hearing conducted by the ZBA, the Town rejected the project by denying the application for a Comprehensive Permit. Green View Realty, the Developer appealed the Town’s decision. The Town motioned to deny the Appeal. The State allowed the Appeal; Green View won the Appeal and received the Comprehensive Permit over the objections of the Town. Next, the Town appealed the HAC decision to the Land Court and recently the Land Court denied the Town’s complaint and upheld the Housing Appeals Committee decision. Holliston then appealed to the State Appeals Court and has now lost three times.
So now where do we stand? The Town lost the chance to get $250,000 and spent approximately $200,000 in multiple attempts to stop the project. Why did Holliston deliberately loose the opportunity to collect $250,000 and squander $200,000 of your money to stop what they themselves initiated? Now your Selectmen having appealed thrice want to appeal again to a higher court. Should we allow Town Government steer us down this path of poor judgment? Should we spend good money after bad to stop a project that will, at the end of the day, improve the Town? We certainly could have used that money somewhere else in Town!
If this chronicle appeals to your differentiation between sense and nonsense ask yourself does the Towns actions make sense? How does Town Government first initiate a process to develop the property then change its mind when they did not like the Developer and suddenly conjure that the land was contaminated and would not support residential housing?
Not to mention our local economy could surely benefit from $70,000,000.00 of commerce where revenue will attribute to local businesses in the Town. New construction leads to jobs, income, tax revenue, fees and an improved local economy.
The Town of Holliston currently has one of the lowest percentages of affordable housing in the Commonwealth. An affordable residential housing development will improve the percentage of affordable housing units in the Town and convert this Brownfield property into a thriving Green housing community with approximately 200 aesthetically pleasing units, 50 of which will be affordable housing units, along with recreation areas, walking paths and conservation areas.
The Cedar Ridge Estates residential housing community will result in an increased value in the underlying & neighboring property; enable remediation of any residual contamination and clean-up site debris; and allow for the repayment of outstanding remediation costs. The project will be completed in a safe and responsible manner and will have no significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood or the environment. The project plans to address today’s demand for environmentally Green Housing by using LEED Construction, adding photovoltaic and solar thermal renewable energy sources. Thus the projects mission statement: “From Brownfield to Greenfield: to clean up yesterday’s contamination to create environmentally green housing for tomorrow.”
As a young man, I was able to work for a man named Charlie Bird. I was about 16, still attending Holliston High School. While working for Charlie we went out to the back 40 one day to cut firewood that he harvested from his land. Distinctly, I remember the enormous pile of tires that stretched in a long row for quite a distance. Charlie believed that used tires would one day fetch him a small fortune. It was an impressive accumulation of tires and by some accounts more than 230,000 of them. Leaving Holliston and home, having graduated with honors, for the United States Naval Academy in 1970 I soon forgot about the tires and the Bird Property. I mention this because Holliston, a town I loved so well has changed!
Many years later I heard that the tire pile was involved in a nasty fire set by vandals and that the property was contaminated by the illegal dumping of solid waste materials and volatile organic chemicals brought from two local businesses. Charlie had died and the property lay fallow and contaminated.
In 2004, as a Financial Advisor, the Trustees of the property contacted me to assist them in finding a suitable investor to create value in the property. The Town of Holliston had agreed, at the suggestion of the DEP, to solicit by formal Request for Response, a builder to purchase and develop the property for an amount sufficient to settle a super lien placed on the land by the DEP and for the contamination cleanup discovered after the tire fire. The Town of Holliston was to receive $250,000 to reimburse the cost of removing the tires for safety sake.
That is when I became involved again because it seemed the right thing to do. The Town was soliciting developers to build on the property, the Town would receive a substantial benefit and the State would recover some of its clean up costs. Believing that the land was worth more than its foreclosure value I assisted the Birds in securing an investor developer to purchase the land and building project solicited by Holliston.
Somewhere along the line, the Town disingenuously decided that the public solicitation was no longer on the table, as I am sure that their intention was under the table, having targeted one particular builder for the project. What a shame! The Town was to receive $250,000.00, a cleaned up property and new housing. By now the Trustees, having an obligation to preserve and protect the value of the property for the beneficiaries, was forced to seek permits to build on the Land as this was the only way to recover enough value to satisfy the State’s Lien and the Towns recovery of costs. At Town Meeting, organized voters denied a warrant article to rezone the property for construction of age-restricted homes for our towns over age 55 population. The only solution became an application to construct homes some of which would be afforded to modest income earning families like Teachers, Fireman, Civil Servants and single mothers needing a home for their broken families, a way to live in the Town they worked for and loved. Instead, Holliston mounted a six year protracted fight to stop any housing development on the Land. As leader of this battle, I was surprised by the neighboring animosity now around me.
After a prolonged 20 month Public Hearing conducted by the ZBA, the Town rejected the project by denying the application for a Comprehensive Permit. Green View Realty, the Developer appealed the Town’s decision. The Town motioned to deny the Appeal. The State allowed the Appeal; Green View won the Appeal and received the Comprehensive Permit over the objections of the Town. Next, the Town appealed the HAC decision to the Land Court and recently the Land Court denied the Town’s complaint and upheld the Housing Appeals Committee decision. Holliston then appealed to the State Appeals Court and has now lost three times.
So now where do we stand? The Town lost the chance to get $250,000 and spent approximately $200,000 in multiple attempts to stop the project. Why did Holliston deliberately loose the opportunity to collect $250,000 and squander $200,000 of your money to stop what they themselves initiated? Now your Selectmen having appealed thrice want to appeal again to a higher court. Should we allow Town Government steer us down this path of poor judgment? Should we spend good money after bad to stop a project that will, at the end of the day, improve the Town? We certainly could have used that money somewhere else in Town!
If this chronicle appeals to your differentiation between sense and nonsense ask yourself does the Towns actions make sense? How does Town Government first initiate a process to develop the property then change its mind when they did not like the Developer and suddenly conjure that the land was contaminated and would not support residential housing?
Not to mention our local economy could surely benefit from $70,000,000.00 of commerce where revenue will attribute to local businesses in the Town. New construction leads to jobs, income, tax revenue, fees and an improved local economy.
The Town of Holliston currently has one of the lowest percentages of affordable housing in the Commonwealth. An affordable residential housing development will improve the percentage of affordable housing units in the Town and convert this Brownfield property into a thriving Green housing community with approximately 200 aesthetically pleasing units, 50 of which will be affordable housing units, along with recreation areas, walking paths and conservation areas.
The Cedar Ridge Estates residential housing community will result in an increased value in the underlying & neighboring property; enable remediation of any residual contamination and clean-up site debris; and allow for the repayment of outstanding remediation costs. The project will be completed in a safe and responsible manner and will have no significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood or the environment. The project plans to address today’s demand for environmentally Green Housing by using LEED Construction, adding photovoltaic and solar thermal renewable energy sources. Thus the projects mission statement: “From Brownfield to Greenfield: to clean up yesterday’s contamination to create environmentally green housing for tomorrow.”
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
As my campaign for Holliston Selectman has moved forward, I have heard many negative and uninformed comments regarding the Cedar Ridge Estates project. I would like to take this opportunity to set the records straight on several issues.
First, I have been asked why I am suing the Town of Holliston. In fact, Green View Realty, LLC (“GVR”), the development company behind Cedar Ridges, is being sued by the Town. Initially, GVR filed an application for the Cedar Ridge Estates project with the Zoning Board of Appeals. After the ZBA denied the project, the Housing Appeals Committee found that the denial was inappropriate and issued the Comprehensive Permit for the project. At his stage, GVR is a co-defendant with the Housing Appeals Committee (represented by the Attorney General). It is actually the Town of Holliston that has initiated two successive litigations in an attempt to overturn the Housing Appeals Committee decision to grant a comprehensive permit for the Cedar Ridge Estates development.
Second, I continue to hear that c. 40B allows the developer to “violate” the Town’s By Laws. This is not the case. A Comprehensive Permit under c. 40B streamlines the zoning process and allows for the construction of affordable housing in municipalities which do not meet the minimum criteria set by the state. In this case, that minimum criteria is to have ten percent of housing units be affordable. Holliston is well be low that threshold. C. 40B allows the developer to waive certain requirements of the local By Laws in order to construct affordable housing. However, this does not mean that where the Town has a legitimate local concern for the health and safety of its residents, the Developer can just overwhelm the local rules. That is the balancing that takes place under c. 40B. A Developer must also comply with all state and federal regulations.
The provisions of 40B were enacted precisely to overcome a municipality’s natural tendency to pass Laws that tend to restrict housing in away that makes it financially more difficult for lower income citizens to live where they work. When a local community cannot demonstrate that their local laws are more important than the need for the Town to provide for more affordable housing, the State Law supersedes the By Law to mandate the housing permit. A comprehensive permit to build is issued as a trade off for the financial sacrifice that the developer makes to support the housing subsidy. The cost to the Town is born by the Developer even though the benefit inures to the Town’s obligation to provide affordable housing. Once considered a fair trade, towns now shun new development and complain that they don’t have enough local authority to prohibit affordable housing.
So long as the safety of the Town Citizens or the Land is not threatened by the construction the need for Affordable Housing generally exceeds the local by law. This makes sense and that is why it is the Law. The mere fact that a town does not like the idea or does not want the development is not sufficient to stop a project approved under 40(b). Perhaps it is not a perfect Law but without this Law, Towns like Holliston would continue to justify restricted Zoning By Laws that insidiously undermine affordable housing.
So in fact I serve my Town well by creating jobs, adding to economic development, eliminating contamination, and provided new homes with an affordable component. The fact that I could also be a Selectman does not interfere or conflict with the Law and nor do Selectman have authority in this area. So I still ask for your vote so that I can lead the town in sorely needed economic development that will matter to the Town’s future.
First, I have been asked why I am suing the Town of Holliston. In fact, Green View Realty, LLC (“GVR”), the development company behind Cedar Ridges, is being sued by the Town. Initially, GVR filed an application for the Cedar Ridge Estates project with the Zoning Board of Appeals. After the ZBA denied the project, the Housing Appeals Committee found that the denial was inappropriate and issued the Comprehensive Permit for the project. At his stage, GVR is a co-defendant with the Housing Appeals Committee (represented by the Attorney General). It is actually the Town of Holliston that has initiated two successive litigations in an attempt to overturn the Housing Appeals Committee decision to grant a comprehensive permit for the Cedar Ridge Estates development.
Second, I continue to hear that c. 40B allows the developer to “violate” the Town’s By Laws. This is not the case. A Comprehensive Permit under c. 40B streamlines the zoning process and allows for the construction of affordable housing in municipalities which do not meet the minimum criteria set by the state. In this case, that minimum criteria is to have ten percent of housing units be affordable. Holliston is well be low that threshold. C. 40B allows the developer to waive certain requirements of the local By Laws in order to construct affordable housing. However, this does not mean that where the Town has a legitimate local concern for the health and safety of its residents, the Developer can just overwhelm the local rules. That is the balancing that takes place under c. 40B. A Developer must also comply with all state and federal regulations.
The provisions of 40B were enacted precisely to overcome a municipality’s natural tendency to pass Laws that tend to restrict housing in away that makes it financially more difficult for lower income citizens to live where they work. When a local community cannot demonstrate that their local laws are more important than the need for the Town to provide for more affordable housing, the State Law supersedes the By Law to mandate the housing permit. A comprehensive permit to build is issued as a trade off for the financial sacrifice that the developer makes to support the housing subsidy. The cost to the Town is born by the Developer even though the benefit inures to the Town’s obligation to provide affordable housing. Once considered a fair trade, towns now shun new development and complain that they don’t have enough local authority to prohibit affordable housing.
So long as the safety of the Town Citizens or the Land is not threatened by the construction the need for Affordable Housing generally exceeds the local by law. This makes sense and that is why it is the Law. The mere fact that a town does not like the idea or does not want the development is not sufficient to stop a project approved under 40(b). Perhaps it is not a perfect Law but without this Law, Towns like Holliston would continue to justify restricted Zoning By Laws that insidiously undermine affordable housing.
So in fact I serve my Town well by creating jobs, adding to economic development, eliminating contamination, and provided new homes with an affordable component. The fact that I could also be a Selectman does not interfere or conflict with the Law and nor do Selectman have authority in this area. So I still ask for your vote so that I can lead the town in sorely needed economic development that will matter to the Town’s future.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Green View Realty responds to Holliston’s Appeal to Higher Court
January 20 2011: Two years after the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee ruled to issue a comprehensive permit to Green View Realty for the construction of 200 Town Homes in Holliston, we are still battling a local issue over the efficacy of the permit. After filing in Middlesex County Superior Court in 2009 and loosing by decision in 2010 Holliston hopefully filed its final appeal to overturn the Comprehensive Permit in October 2010. Now Green View Realty has filed its answer for the third time to the repetitive issues brought by the Town to stop the project. Attorneys for the Appellee Rubin and Rudman, LLC feel very confident that the Green View response provides a solid rebuttal to the allegations proffered by the Town’s council.
Oral arguments will be scheduled for early spring with the expectation of an Appeal Court decision by early summer.
The next milestone goal for Green View is to be shovel ready for construction in the spring of 2012.
Oral arguments will be scheduled for early spring with the expectation of an Appeal Court decision by early summer.
The next milestone goal for Green View is to be shovel ready for construction in the spring of 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)