12/19/2007 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

a letter dated May 19, 2006 that the Iiashpee Planning Board did have jurisdiction over the commercial project. The Chairman then welcomed Applicant to the Planning Board and to the process that they believe the Town of l iashpee is entitled to under Planning Board jurisdiction. She has reviewed the Cape Cod Commission Decision which is exactly whait the Planning Board is charged to review. She suggested the Board Members do the same in order make their task easier. She explained that it is in the Planning Board's purview to elaborate on any of the conditions imposed by the Cape Cock Commission(however, they cannot be relaxed). The Chairman then deferred to Town Counsel, Mr. Costello, who agreed with the Chairman that his first involvement with this project was in May 00 , at which time he was asked to render an opinion on the issue of Planning Board jurisdiction over the project. The Zoning Board of Appeals had special counsel advising it through-out their process. Attorney Costello stated for the record that he had no prior involvement. Attorney Costello agreed with the summary of his opinion as presented by the. Chairman. The primary issue of consideration was whether or not the Planning Board retained any jurisdiction over the project with reference to the commercial component. Ch. 40B imposes a substantial change in development regulation in Massachusetts. All three sections of the General Lavers allows the Zoning Board of Appeals in a town to assunne the duties and responsibilities of various town boards, including planning boards, as it.relates to affordable housing development projects. The Planning Board did receive notice Of the Zoning Board of Appeals-proceedings and under the Comprehensive Permit is allowed to comment and participate in the proceedings. It does not, however, allow the Planning Board to make the typical decisions generally made under the Zoning Bylaw relative to Special Permits related to the residential components of the project. Attorney Costello then spoke to the issues surrounding mixed use development. In adopting Ch. 40B the legislature has stressed the economic viability of a proposed 40B housing projects as a crucial criteria that the Board should be aware of In order to make 0B projects more economically viable, it is the believed that by mixing commercial and residential aspects of a proposed development, the economic strength of the project is increased. Attorney Costello upheld his opinion rendered in 2006 to the extent that the commercial component of a mixed use project is not allowed as of right by a Zoning Bylaw. The Planning Board does retain jurisdiction over the commercial component-to the extent than it needs to issue a special permit to authorize the use. He then cautioned the Board that although the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board are separate and distinct bodies, the Zoning Board of Appeals does assume substantial control and deference in these projects under Ch. 40B, to the extent that they specifically addressed components of this project that are integral to both the residential and commercial components. He did caution the Planning Board to consider and take into account the prior decision, comprehensive permit, wade by the Zoning Board of Appeals as well a