[Massplanners] Applicant changing size of project in Special Permit Hearing...reapply or add conditions to possible approval?

[Planning]

We experienced a similar situation in Orange with a project that reduced its size by half during the hearing process due to financial changes on the applicant's side and their need to phase a large project that they thought they could originally do all at once. We did what Daniel Fortier suggests in his email and had our departments re-review the new revisions/plans showing the removal of items that were originally on the application. Our independent reviewer for the town who assists with the storm water and site engineering review also sees the revised plans. We scheduled the continuance to allow time for these reviews, and in the end ensured that when the special permit was granted, the specific date of the revised plans were in the granting language and conditions.

Our officials felt this was reasonable for them to be able to enforce because they follow the language of the plan date that is spelled out in the special permit document. I ensure that the loop is closed with our Building Commissioner by providing them a copy of the special permit so that when the applicant comes to apply for their building permit, the building department knows to watch for the recorded copy of the special permit and plans approved. Our building department requires a recorded copy of special permits, etc to be attached to their application for a building permit.

Hope this is supportive,


Mercedes


Mercedes Clingerman

Planning Board Chair

Town of Orange

Mail: 6 Prospect Street, Attn: Planning Board, Orange, MA 01364

Location of Planning Board Office: BY APPOINTMENT- 62 Cheney Street, Orange, MA 01364

email: planning at townoforange.org


________________________________
From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> on behalf of Daniel Fortier via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 10:41 PM
To: bcolema at comcast.net <bcolema at comcast.net>
Cc: Listserv (massplanners at masscptc.org) <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] Applicant changing size of project in Special Permit Hearing...reapply or add conditions to possible approval?

Plans get modified all the time in the public hearing process. I see no need to withdraw and re-advertise. However, one or more continuances might be in order. One to receive a new set of plans, and a second to give the public time to review and give the Board input. I have been involved with projects that have changed significantly through the hearing process. I would definitely recommend the Board require new plans illustrating the revised plan be submitted at least 2 weeks prior to the continued hearing to allow the Board, and staff, time to review the material.

Daniel Fortier, AICP Retired Planner

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, 8:42 PM William Cole via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org>> wrote:
Thanks in advance for insight regarding PB responsibilities and options regarding a current Special Permit application, which has been briefly continued.

(Allow me to be circumspect about particulars)  Likely sensing disapproval from neighbors and possibly from PB regarding the size of a proposed project and its impact with a residential district, the applicant announced at the opening of the SP Hearing that the proposal was now for a project only half as large as described in the SP application (and accompanying plans).  The applicant pointed out which physical locations in the project would not be pursued.  My question is this:  should PB require the application be withdrawn and a new application (with new maps and details) be required?  And if so, then presumably a new Hearing etc?  I know a larger project would require this.  But some are of the opinion that approval of the original application could be given and conditions (re size, general location etc) simply put on the approval to limit its size and impact.  I am inclined to think reapplication versus conditions is the fairest and responsible option (and more enforceable for future officials), but appreciate any others opinions, with references if possible.

thanks very much,

Bill Cole
Hardwick MA
--
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org<mailto: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/20250414/4f649673/attachment.htm>