[Massplanners] Substantial Use of a Special Permit

[Richard Harris]

Since I was called out, I will respond. Yes, we did have a Performance
Guarantee on the residential development - we would require Performance
Guarantees on residential developments approved by Special Permit to ensure
that the "special conditions" were followed. In the case of a project under
development, the Board would grant an extension of the Special Permit for
good cause as authorized under MGL 40A, Section 9.

But, each community can interpret the legislation as they wish. We never
had a developer push back on the Board's "substantial use" interpretation
that we held to - at a minimum, the project had to be under construction
and continually so.

Thank you.

Richard Harris, AICP
PDR, LLC
Planning Consultant
413-335-5012


On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:22 PM Gary Ayrassian <
cityplanner at cityofattleboro.us> wrote:

> I agree with Dan. In Attleboro, if one pulls the building permit in the 24
> th month, the SPGA (whether ZBA or PB) and the Building Commissioner
> consider the special permit being exercised (aka “substantial use”).
>
>
>
> To Bob’s comment, we’ve intentionally maintained the 24-month window in
> our *Zoning Ordinance*.
>
>
>
> Question for Richard – if whatever extent of the “roadways, utilities etc.”
> that were installed fell short of the "substantial use" threshold at the
> end of the 24-month period, as deemed by town officials, what would be the
> town’s recourse in such matters? Revocation of the special permit? Does the
> town require a form of performance guarantee for a project, a residential
> development, that’s approved only by a special permit? I would think not,
> but I thought I’d ask.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
>
> *Gary G. Ayrassian, Director*
>
> Department of Planning & Development
>
> City of Attleboro | City Hall - Government Center |
>
> 77 Park Street | Attleboro, MA  02703 |
>
> p: 508.223.2222 x 3143 | f: 508.222.3046 |
>
> cityplanner at cityofattleboro.us |
>
> www.cityofattleboro.us |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Harris via MassPlanners (massplanners at masscptc.org)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:51 PM
> *To:* Maren Toohill <MToohill at littletonma.org>
> *Cc:* massplanners at masscptc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Massplanners] Substantial Use of a Special Permit
>
>
>
> I saw other comments from Jeff and Dan. However, I would suggest that
> merely filing a Definitive Subdivision Plan should not constitute
> "substantial use". I think it needs to go at least a step further to the
> point that the Definitive Plan is approved, endorsed, and recorded.
>
>
>
> When I was Planning Director in South Hadley, the Planning Board held that
> the improvements to allow development on a majority of the lots was
> necessary to constitute "substantial use"; thus, the roadways, utilities
> etc. sufficient to provide service to allow buildings to be constructed on
> at least half the lots was required. There were suggestions by some
> Planning Board members that even that wasn't sufficient.
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Richard Harris, AICP
>
> PDR, LLC
>
> Planning Consultant
>
> 413-335-5012
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:17 PM Maren Toohill via MassPlanners <
> massplanners at masscptc.org> wrote:
>
> It’s not Friday yet, how about a Wednesday question?
>
> “Special Permits shall lapse 24 months following the grant thereof….if a
> substantial use or construction has not sooner commenced, except for good
> cause.”
>
> In your opinion, does the filing of a Definitive Subdivision constitute
> “substantial use”?
>
> I am arguing with….myself about this one.
>
> Maren
>
>
>
> Maren A. Toohill, AICP
>
> Town Planner
>
> 978/540-2425
>
> MToohill at littletonma.org
>
> Town of Littleton
>
>
>
> --
> MassPlanners mailing list
> MassPlanners at masscptc.org
> http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20240221/aeca4efe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20240221/aeca4efe/attachment.jpg>