My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/18/2005 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
05/18/2005 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2022 4:12:03 PM
Creation date
1/19/2022 2:24:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/18/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Determining the Content Sufficiency of the Planning Board Hearing Notice <br /> In ter the Board-of Selectmen are directed "to insert in the <br /> warrant" for annual and special town-meetings "all su the insertion of which shall be <br /> requested of therm in writing." <br /> In Oeneral Laws ChapLuA0A. the Board of Selectmen are directed to submit to the <br /> Plannng Board T " for hearing a copy of any Mposal submitted to them to amend the <br /> zoning by-law. Section 5 spellsout the exclusive means by which adoption or change of coning <br /> by-laws may be initiated. The steps include 1 someone proposing n amendrnent,to the <br /> Selectmen, the Selectmen submitting the proposal to the Planning Board, the Planning <br /> Board holding a hearing giving notice first of the 'subject matter sufficient for identification," <br /> and the Selectmen inserting the proposal as an article.in the town meeting wamint. Neither of <br /> the above two statutes prescribe whether the warrant is to prime the Planning Board notice or <br /> may be done later. <br /> The difficulty comes when we try to determine the sufficiency of the Planning Board <br /> notice, and whether the notice adequately states "the subject matter's of the proposed amendment. <br /> Generally we encounter the difficulty in the following two contexts, discussed below as Situation , <br /> i and Situation B. Clearly in Situation B below,the only thing we can compare the "subject <br /> natter" identified in the Planning ing Board notice with is-the original "proposal," in whatever form <br /> that proposal had been made. In Situation A,however, we can compare the Plarming Board <br /> notice with the text of the warrant article, assuming for the moment that there is a complete <br /> correspondence between the original proposal and the warrant article. Complicating matters <br /> further,the Planning Board is often itself the original "proponent" of the amendment,and may <br /> road directly with plans for the planning Board hearing and the publication of the notice of <br /> hearing even before requesting of the Selectmen the insertion of the.subject in a town meeting <br /> warrant.. In such a case,the notice is likely to be identical to the proposal. <br /> Situation A Situation <br /> (Warrant precedes PB Notice) (Warrant is later than PB Notice <br /> 1. The Proposal r Zoning Amendment 1. The Proposal for . nimg Amendment <br /> . The Warrant Article 2. The Deferral of the Proposal to the PB <br /> L3 <br /> The Refenral of the proposal to the PB 3. The PB Notice ted <br /> . The PB Notice . The PB Hearing(and a sugges change) <br /> 5. The PB Hearing(and a suggested change) 5. The Warrant Article(incorporates the <br /> change) <br /> ti. The Motion(incorporates the change) . The Motion(in terms of the Article) <br /> . The Vote . The Vote LLJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.