8/1/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ordinance and would determine whether it was a de minimi s change, if not, he would return it to the original Board that approved it. The Chair recognized Mr. Lehrer, who stated that the FB would define the building with clear standards for whoever would be responsible for making the decisions. Ms. Farr added that some Towns had decided to authorize a 3-4 member committee of staff, already involved with project reviews, to serve as the review for projects under 10,000 square feet. Ms.Farr further added that Small Project Plans sh out d not have signi fi cant off-site impacts. Mr. B alzatini stated that 2 ashpee was a small community and he could see how FBC could be better suited to a larger community like Barnstable or Plymouth. It was Mr. Balzarini's opinion that additional Boards were not necessary to check on planning Board's projects. Mr. Balzarini continued that the planning Board could handle review of the projects and likely giv- e 11 ashpee Commons what they wanted, further adding that most of the projects would likely fall under 10,000 square feet. Mr. B alzarini felt as though there was an of fort to remove the Planning Board from the process. lam-. Bal arini understood Mr. Lehrer s point but was unclear whether he supported the FBC, and also agreed with Mf, Rowley.about the Building Inspector's authority to male decisions regarding the Small Project flan. Ms. Farr suggested that there may be another alternaffi a and Mr. Bal anini suggested that it should be the planning Board. Ms. Farr responded that the Planning Board would have three additional projects to review, including Master Plans, Subdivision and Large projects. There was interest from,the public to speak about the role of the Building Inspector, but the Chair explained that they would not fret take Public Comment, but continue first with Board member comments. Mr. Cummings expressed his agreement with Mr. Bal zari.ru, suggesting that he would not want the Building Inspector responsible for changes up to 10 acres in a tot area, adding that it was a lame area that should be the responsibility of-the planning Board. Vis, Farr suggested the possibility of adjusting the threshold by lowering the acreage,.as well as identifying the correct staff person, and asked to hear more from the Board addressing those issues. The Chair noted that feedback had just been given. Ms. Far i nqui red whether the Board would be comfortable for staff to review a smaller building, with lesser acreage and the Chair responded that they would need to take her proposal under advisement. Mr..Weeden agreed with lam-. Cummings and Mr. Balza.rini. Mr. Hansen also agreed with the other Board members and inquired about issues of enforcement or appeal should an issue arse following the approval of projects. Ms. Farr responded that the Building Inspector would continue to serve in an enforcement role. Mr. Bal zari ni pointed out that the planning Board would not know if there was a.n infracti on on a Small FroJect Plan because the Building Inspector would be responsible for the entire project. Chairman Waygan noted that it appeared to be a conflict of interest. Where was discussion regarding whether Mashpee had a Building Inspector or Building Commissioner, but it was noted that it would not change the comments of members of the planning Board regarding authority. Mr. Hansen inquired about the recourse of the Planning Board if development was not meeting the standards and Ms. Farr stated that the Building Inspector was appointed by the Selectmen. The Chair poirued out that the Building 7