8/1/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that it met certain targets related to the layout of the neighborhood and would be reviewed by the Planning Board with a Public Hearing process. The Master Plan Process would apply to parcels under one single ownership involving the potential for significant or phased development or any proposed assignment or reassignment of character districts or special districts to land located within a pedestrian shed on the Mashpee Commons Regulating Plan, his. Wilbur described an example of a project that would be reviewed as part of the Master Plan Process. Ills. Farr noted th at the Admini strati on section would provi de procedures for Master Plan, to include a time period for review, a Public Heating, a decision, as well as revision procedures. once the Master Plan was approved by the Planning Board, any applicant could move forward with a Subdivision-- Plate* Large Prof'et Plan or mall Project Plan apph cati on, Aubdivi si ori Plan was comparable to the 0 i sti ng process for Subdivision Plans, with language straight from MGL. Large Project Plans involved buildings greater than 10,000 square feet-and would be reviewed by the Planning Board, against the standards of the ordinance, with consideration of on-site and off-site impacts. Small Projects would have less impact and could be addressed in a more streamlined way with staff approval because PBC removed much of the- guess work out of the process. The Special Permit Process would remain as a special circumstance that the PBC would authorize with Planning Board discussion, which would then' require a Public Dearing, typically related'to use. Ms. Parr assured the Planning Board that they had looked very carefully at compliance with MGL 40.x. and 41, Sections 81K through B and G. Mr. Balzarini referenced Small Prj ect Plans and inquired why the Planning Board would not consider the projects, rather than the Building Inspector. Mr. Balzarini also wished to know more about Plan revision and their purpose. Ms. Farr responded that the Building Inspector would serve as the staff to review Small Project Plans, noting that curre.ntly the Building Inspector served as that authority through 'enforcement in the current Bylaw. Mr. B al z arini stated that the Building ommissioner served in enforcement and not planning. It was confirmed that it was currently the Town Planner and Consultant Engineer who we're the staff involved in the planning proccss. The Clair recognized Mh Rowley"who inquired how the Building Inspector would determine site improvements, 'and whether there was the authon'ty and qualifications to'determine any site improvements. Ms. Farr responded that the zoning code would define the site 'improvements, adding that the Building Inspector currently enforced the Bylaws and could withhold a.permit. N4r. Rowley responded that the Building Inspector's role was completely different from approving site improvements under a Small Project Plan, with nd Notice and no Public Hearing. Ms. Parr responded that the Building Inspector would review the application to the standards of the'section, write the decision and then grant approval or denial, The Chair inquired if Mr. Rowley was seeping whether the Building Inspector would have legal authority and Mr. Rowley responded that it was not only legal, but also technical and professional authority. Ms. Farr responded that legal authority would fall under Chapter 40 , Section 7. The Chair distributed copies of Chapter 40A to the members of the Board. IIIb. B alzarini stated his preference that Small Project Plan be removed. The Chair was in agreement with NIr. B al zarinl that staff should not be determining approval of Small Project Plan: 11llr. Balzarini added that the Planning Board currently determined whether or not a proj ct rewired a Public Hearing, noting that the Building Inspector inspected work being completed. Ms. Farr responded that he was enforcing-the zoning 6