<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.gmail-msonospacing, li.gmail-msonospacing, div.gmail-msonospacing
{mso-style-name:gmail-msonospacing;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Bob and others:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>I tended to agree with your expansive home-rule-type interpretation (so did Bob Ritchie), but here’s what we got back from the AG’s office:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>“Article 14 – We approve Article 14 from the Shutesbury Annual Town Meeting of June <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>12, 2021 except for text in the proposed by-law that conflicts with G.L. c. 40A, § 9 because it <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>authorizes associate planning board members to act on matters other than special permit <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>applications. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>The proposed by-law authorizes the appointment of two associate members of the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>planning board to “participate fully in procedures for a special permit, site plan review, or any <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>other application before the Planning Board, as well as other procedural matters designated by <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>the chairperson…” (Section 10.4A, Associate Members) (emphasis supplied). We disapprove <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>and delete the underlined text because it conflicts with G.L. c. 40A, § 9 that authorizes associate <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>planning board members to serve only when the planning board is reviewing special permits: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Zoning ordinances or by-laws may provide for associate members of a planning <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>board when a planning board has been designated as a special permit granting <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>authority.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Section 9, paragraph 11. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Because the statute only authorizes the service of associate planning board members when a <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>planning board is serving as a special permit granting authority, the Town may not extend the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>authorization to review of site plans and other applications, and we disapprove and delete the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>underlined text. Apart from the underlined text, the proposed by-law is consistent with the <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>requirements of G.L. c. 40A, § 9.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Jeff Lacy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>Rural Planning Associates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>(413) 230-9693<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces@masscptc.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bob Mitchell via MassPlanners<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 6, 2022 2:22 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Dell'Aquila <psdplans@gmail.com>; Daniel Fortier <daniel.j.fortier@gmail.com>; Mass Planners <massplanners@masscptc.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Massplanners] Alternate Planning Board Members - guidance on responsibilities<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>PauI: I would add a couple of notes to Dan's response.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>a) Chapter 40A, Section 9 covers associate PB members. A city or town may adopt a zoning ordinance or bylaw provision for the appointment of associate members (sometimes referred to as “alternate members”) of a planning board when the board acts as a SPGA. A 5-member planning board is authorized to have one associate member, while a board of more than 5 members is authorized to have 2 associate members. <b>The city or town shall establish the procedure for filing this position. </b>(Emphasis added. The towns have to have an adopted and written procedure for the appointment of associate members)<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=gmail-msonospacing style='text-align:justify'>b) If either town has a by-right Site Plan Review process in their zoning bylaw then an alternative PB member may also vote on a SPR application but only if the text of the zoning bylaw specifically authorizes alternative PB members to vote on Site Plan Reviews.<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>SPR is a creature of local government, not the Zoning Act, thus you can establish the "rules" for the SPR process in your local zoning bylaw.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bob<br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#000099;background:white'>Bob Mitchell FAICP</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Planning Consultant<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Land Use, Planning, Zoning, & Training Programs<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>151 Tremont Street Suite 23A<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Boston, MA 02111<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>617-512-9751 (c)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:MitchellFAICP@gmail.com" target="_blank">MitchellFAICP@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:33 AM Daniel Fortier via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>There is no provision in the Subdivision Control Act for alternates, so we have taken the position that they cannot act on subdivisions or ANR’s. The Zoning Act provides for alternates, so the alternates are allowed to sit on Special Permits and all other zoning matters.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Dan Fortier<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Retired/Interim Dennis Town Planner<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986" target="_blank">Mail</a> for Windows<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">Paul Dell'Aquila via MassPlanners</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, June 6, 2022 11:12 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>[Massplanners] Alternate Planning Board Members - guidance on responsibilities<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Happy Monday, MassPlanners -<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The Planning Boards in both of the towns I work for have long-standing alternate members, however there is no specific verbiage in any town documents about their roles and responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This is relevant because some full board members believe that Alternates can't vote on subdivisions or special permits, and we might have some upcoming quorum issues. Do any communities have guidance on the role and responsibilities of a Planning Board Alternate?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Paul Dell'Aquila<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Boylston/Upton Town Planner <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>MassPlanners mailing list<br><a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br><a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>