Laserfiche WebLink
1• <br /> f <br /> lli!!II <br /> determination and then to send a letter to the town,usually g the Planning Board <br /> requesting a formal referral under the CCC Act. The Planning Board must then vote to <br /> refer this matter to the CCC. The CCC,Mr. Butler believes,has scheduled a hearing <br /> January 25, 2000 on the DRI application to be held at the Mashpee Town Hall. The issue <br /> tonight is the core issue as it relates to the determination of DRI permit. One of the <br /> Endings that has to be made by the CCC in order to grant a DRI is that a project is in <br /> p <br /> conformance with local zoning. Mr. Butler concluded by saying that summarized where <br /> the Planning Board was relative to the CCC. <br /> Chairman John Kuchinski arrived @ 7:18 P <br /> Mr. McElhinney stated the issue before the Planning Board responding to a request from <br /> the CCC and also making the additional determination as to whether or not the Planning , <br /> Board has jurisdiction over the project as a matter of local zoning. Mr. McElhinney <br /> presented Mr. Marty Healey as counsel assisting Mr. McElhinney. Mr. Healey began by �! <br /> addressing a couple of points that have come up in the exchange of correspondence on { <br /> . � I <br /> the matter of Jurisdiction. First,the request before the board in terns of the Special � <br /> Permit(SP)granted in 1987 is really one of reducing the density and to converting the <br /> area the would have been occupied with dwelling units into part of the additional golf <br /> course holes. Originally, when the SP was granted,the golf course use was considered an <br /> open space use. The problem appears to be one of semantics: how the questions is asked <br /> depends on the answer one receives, according to Mr. Healey. Mr. HcaleY feels that <br /> perhaps what has happened that has been almost an assumption on Ms. Lane's part(town <br /> counsel)that what willowbend is asking is a major modification. Mr. Healey believes <br /> the fundamental issue is open is what type of a modification is this? The Planning Board <br /> makes that decision: is this a major or minor modification to the SP? Mr. Healey <br /> believes it is the boards' decision, not Ms. Lane's. Mr. Healey believes the Plannin <br /> "E <br /> Board should conclude that a reduction in density and an increase of open space is not a <br /> major modification and the history of changes approved by this board indicate that such <br /> changes have been approved in the past. Also,the boards own permits have included <br /> language that contemplated this boards retention to make further modifications. Mr. <br /> Healey believes the debate about the law and jurisdiction should be set aside to answer <br /> the fundamental questions of a factual determination as to whether the change is major <br /> (new special permit) or minor(modification to existing special permit). Mr. Balzarini <br /> p p � <br /> asked if a or modification is within the special permit, major would be outside the <br /> boundaries of the existing special permit. Mr. Fudala responded that town counsel that <br /> willowbend needs a new special permit because the change is major. Mr. Kuchinski <br /> stated that minor changes would be small technical changes. Mr. Healey responded that <br /> decision should be made by the board. According to Mr. Healey,the original SP was a <br /> very broad grant of rights and was not tied specifically to exactly g were where things , <br /> going to be placed. Mr. Fudala objected to that statement, saying there are 130 pages of <br /> plans that makes detailed plans that were approved as part of the SP; it Is not broad at all, r <br /> it is very specific. Mr. Healey responded that there was language in the SP that had been <br /> granted and contemplated that there can be changes. Again,Mr. Fudala responded that <br /> the plans were specific. Mr. McElhinney asked how other permits(Stratford Ponds, ; <br /> i <br /> ifr <br /> f n <br /> 2 <br />