01/19/2000 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

IL y legal status of the previous modifications' Iris. Lane's response: if not challenged,they may not be lawful, but if they re not challenged,they cannot be changed. If there is project that is approved and lawful by existence of a Special Permit, pre-existing, non- con ormm' g use sloes not apply. '1'he Special Permit.is a.privilege to conduct a use concerning structures that-do not allow unless specific approval of the Planning Board. Ms. Lame stated that by the time the applicant requests another change the requires a pecial'Perrnit,the applicant needs to comply with current zoning by-law, unless here i an -year zoning freeze. Looking at the willovbend project, the -year protection has evaporated; the board may not have been aware of that what is being discussed is not pre-existing, non-conforming use but is talking about the limits of the permission that was given under the Special-Perm it. Mr. Healey responded that the willo bend felt the issues could be resolved by the looping at the Special Permit density plan as amended . Ms. Lane stated she did not agree with Mr. Healey. Mir. FuMa indicated the density plan is not the only plan being modified. Mr. Healey geed. Mr. Fudala asked to reflect on the history of that Planning Board. There were a series of changes made to sections of the projects and the board was losing track of where all the minutes were that were still allowed by the pent. Given that,the board asked the applicant to tell them where they would end up in terms of units. The point of the lame of that modification was for the applicant to summanze all the changes that were being made. Mr. l icElhinney said that was correct,which to him]k indicates the specific set of plans approved with the contemplation of future changes will be made. Ms. Lane indicated the decision is jp*ving the applicant the benefit of doubt The question now i "what is the issue from 1995 on" Ir. Fula responded the modification of layouts of heights, change to the northern portion of the project, multi-family into single, and Phase northwest corner. The project was signed as partly a Cluster Subdivision and partly a Multi-Family development,but that line was blurred in the modifications that followed. Mr. Fudala stated f u-ther that the board assumed they modifications were made under the old terms. Mr. Dorgan indicated that was beneficial to Willowbend and NWhp e. Mr. Fudala stated that under old zoning, in multi-family development, the golf course would count as open space. willowb nd's reference to the fact that they're replacing housing with golfcourse(open space); they are also replacing to acres of preserved open space that the board had required they not use as a golf course. They cannot do that under zoning that even existed before the Special Permit was issued. That's probably the biggest issue as to why willwbend does not want to fall under current zoning: a golf course cannot be used as open space. The new zoning actually requires 4 0%actual protected open space in addition to the golf course. Mr. Butler responded that if in fact it were a DRI, it would be %. Mir. Fudala stated'that under a I RI, it would be %. Open space is not a problern. Mr. Butler stated the CCC requirement,could be met. Ms. vcrl Dane(Associate Planning Board member)asked what is the negative effect of using current zoning. Mr. 11►ricBlhinney responded with "the short answer?is, it doesn't' and, if Willowbend goes fond under the old zoning, they would meet all performance criteria of the new zoning. The problem is two-fold: 1) Willowbend does not have the ability to change the use of the open space unilaterally. Willo b nd does not own the golf course; it is owned by the owners(about 1 o)and to change requires a unanimous approval of the owners, which i*s unlikely; villowbend is not prepared to forego finnre modifications to the Special Permit. Ms. Lane indicated the Planning Board is not bound