<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;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@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">Thanks, Jeff.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, the Special Permit was not a required precursor to the Definitive approval process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, since you asked – what I <i>want</i> is the applicant to file to amend the prior Special Permit to reflect their “updated vision” for the development – which could also serve to extend the special permit timeline. It’s been a great
working relationship between the SPGA and developer to date, and I trust that will continue, but am also hearing concerns about assuring that development moves forward in tandem with all the work on (and expense of) Town Sewer.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks again,<br>
Maren<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates@crocker.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Maren Toohill <MToohill@littletonma.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> massplanners@masscptc.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Massplanners] Substantial Use of a Special Permit<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
**THIS EMAIL WAS SENT BY AN EXTERNAL SENDER** <br>
Maren<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Assuming special permit was a required precursor to seeking a definitive plan approval, I would say yes. Because creating a definitive plan submittal is a lot of work and expense. And, do you really want the SPGA to have to go through all
that again?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeff Lacy <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rural Planning Associates <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(413) 230-9693<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Feb 21, 2024, at 12:17 PM, Maren Toohill via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s not Friday yet, how about a Wednesday question?<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Special Permits shall lapse 24 months following the grant thereof….if a substantial use or construction has not sooner commenced, except for good cause.”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In your opinion, does the filing of a Definitive Subdivision constitute “substantial use”?<br>
<br>
I am arguing with….myself about this one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maren<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maren A. Toohill, AICP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Town Planner<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">978/540-2425<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:MToohill@littletonma.org"><span style="color:#0563C1">MToohill@littletonma.org</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Town of Littleton<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>