12/15/1999 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

f rHlr 7+i 1 1f1' i applies is important for two reasons: 1)original bylaw allows for modifications by the I board, so if a freeze in effect because of the SP,then that bylaw is in effect. Looking at the history of modifications the board has assumed and decided, the original bylaw was still operative for subsequent modifications on several occasions. Mr. Fudala thinks the town counsel would say some of those modifications were in error since the subdivision freeze expired a few years ago. Mr. Healey felt that town counsel said willowbend hadn't carried their burden of proof the subdivision freeze had expired a couple of years ago. Mr. Fudala responded the subdivision freeze is only good for 8 years,expiring in , p g 1992. Mr. Kuchinski stated a SP freezes zoning, under certain circumstances. Per Mr. Healey,those circumstances are: must begin construction within 6 months and continue reasonably expeditiously; constructed in substantial compliance with the SP issued with original intent. Mr. Healey asked"what is the boards' power to modify?" The SP gives power to the board to modify; changes are inevitable. what was the boards intent in granting the SP, what the authority the board granted itself? These are the main questions, per Mr. Healey, Mr. Kuchinski stated the board decides whether a change is minor or major,under the SP. Going outside the boundaries of the originalparcel,arcel what happens to substantial compliance? Mr. Healey feels adding land to development is good; golf course were considered open space,recreational use. Mr. Kuchinski asked if ` the golf course was supposed to be for willowbend residents only. Mr. McElhinney answered that was dealt with in the l st or 2nd modification to the SP by the board. The language of the bylaw states that it was open to members of the cornznunity and their guests; the modification changed that to include outside members. Mr. Kuchinski thought that was at full buildout. Mr. Fudala responded that would have been a zoning bylaw change that the Planning Board would not make. Mr. Kuchinski asked the . representatives of willowbend present that"as they add land to the development,the board can will it back to the 1987 clock"? Mr. McElhinney answered that willowbend will file under the new bylaw for the pieces outside of the original plan. Mr. Kuchinski asked if the 1st hole is considered natural, open undisturbed parcel in the original plan. Mr. McElhinney said it was a open space parcel that it would remain untouched,but-by law it is restricted the same as everything else. A concern was raised by Mr. Kuchinski about the archaeological sites. Mr. Malone asked if the CCC review of the DRI is bound by any of the grandfather clauses? They do have grandfather protection. Mr. Fudala responded the CCC Act exempts special permits prior to January 1989;no subdivision protection. The CCC looks at current zoning. If a project is not in substantial compliance with a special permit issued prior to 1989,the CCC takes jurisdiction. Mr. Fudala indicated the CCC has submitted a DRI referral be signed off by the board; it's a mandatory referral. The Planning Board has a legally conforming application. Mr. Malone asked how a jurisdiction is defined. Mr. McElhinney responded that willowbend filed under 1985 zoning with modifications; every time it's been modified, it's been in accordance with those regulations. The board has to make a decision on the application filed 1 is it a substantial change, does the board have jurisdiction. Mr. Y pp ) g � � -F� Fudala feels that town counsel is stating the board has jurisdiction,but under current �� zoning bylaws. The boar.must act on the current modification application within 90 ;x days. According to Mr. Malone,various parts of the project fall under old zoning. Mr. Dorgan related from the town counsel letter, page 2,paragraph 2: willowbend ,I= t I