8/1/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

} The Chair recognized Mr. Rowley. Mr. Rowley stated that he would have no issue with the Building Inspector or Commissionerif the only thing he was reviewing were buildings meeting the code on properties that were developed with site improvernents in place, but questioned the review of new buildings, accessory buildings, building renovations, additions and also site improvements, such as utilities, stormwater, paving and landscaping. Ms. Farr referenced the Subdivision Plan. Mr. Rowley responded that he was refer 'ng to a Small Project Flan. Ms. Farr asked for specificity, referencing grading, landscape installation, stormwater rain gardensx electrical within the bounds of the property. Mr. Rowley inquired about the qualifications of the Building Inspector to improve a stormwater drainage facility. This. Farr responded that if there was significant stormwater, there was a section that would set aside escrow funds for outside review. Mr. Rowley stated that, according to the FB , it would be under the purview of the Building Inspector. Ms. Farr responded that, during the review of projects, a third party review could be acquired. The Chair stated that there was no threshold in place requiring the Building Inspector to seek third party review. Ms. Farr inquired whether the Planning Board was inferring that the Building Inspector would not follow the rubs. Mr. Rowley responded that the Building Inspector was not a qualified professional to do what was outside of the code that he was responsible for a.dmini stefi rig. Ms. Farr responded that Mr. Rowley was saying the same thing as the Board members which she was hearing. Mr. Rowley responded that he was emphasizing the fact-that they were placing the responsibility of planning and code enforcement in the hands of the Building Inspector, which was another level of bureaucracy that could be addressed by the Planning Board, Mr, Rowley further inquired about the meaning of"changes to a lot.'} Ms. Farr responded with an example of 10 spaces, requesting a removal of 2 spaces or changing the grade to install landscaping or installation of a solar array,.because it was changes not specified by the FB . Mr. Rowley suggested that there was a lot of vague language and inconsistency throughout the :. document, not consistent with the existing Zoning Bylaw, creating significant confusion. All of the details needed to be addressed so that it was workable for everyone. The Chair suggested the possibility of returning to the existing Planning Board's review process. Ms. Farr responded that they were discussing two separate issues, procedure and clarity. Mr, Rowley and the Chair responded that they were not different. Ms. Farr stated that they would like specific recommendations where clarity was lacking and the Chair responded that it was not theJ ob of the Planning Board to point out what was missing, The Chair suggested that Mashpee Commons strife Article 7 and utilize their standing review process. Chairman Waygan referenced the Planning Board's-Mixed-Ise Planned Development proposed Bylaw submitted to the Board of Selectmen that would maintain the existing Special Permit review process, with an option for a Master Plan. with Form-Based Code to develop by right, The Chair stated that they may not approve Article 7 and that the Bylaw under consideration for Town Meeting would maintain the current review process. Mr. Rowley referenced the General Procedures in Article 7 showing conflicting requirements of Permit Authority versus Review Authority. Mr-. Rowley,referenced Table 7.1 which would create confusion for an.applicant, inquiring about land conveyance by the Board of Selectmen. .Ms. Farr responded that land disposal must be initiated by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Rowley inquired about property owned by a.private individual and Ms. Farr-responded that the ordinance was written eventually for the entire area, adding that, if there was land with a desire to transfer 9