<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=us-ascii"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi, Valerie:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I suppose the board could argue that SPR only looks at immediate site-specific design issues whereas SP looks more broadly at neighborhood and even town-wide issues. Project could be deemed OK on the micro analysis, but not OK on the macro analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>However, this points out the inadvisability of requiring stand-alone SPR AND SP for a use. It’s especially crazy if assigned to different boards. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>SPR is a “by-right” regulatory process that goes with some by-right uses, whereas SP is discretionary. If elements of both are warranted, what I recommend is to require incorporation of the design/plan details of a SPR be submitted with a SP application. But, the process is 100% SP. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Jeff Lacy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Rural Planning Associates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>896 Graves Road<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Conway, MA 01341<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>(413) 230-9693<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none'>From:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none'> MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces@masscptc.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Valerie Oorthuys via MassPlanners<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:33 AM<br><b>To:</b> Darlene Wynne via MassPlanners <massplanners@masscptc.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [Massplanners] Split Site Plan Approval/ Special Permit Decision<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi everyone, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m wondering if anyone may have an example to share of a decision that grants Site Plan Approval while denying a Special Permit? In Stow, this is typically a combined decision. The Planning Board would have good reason to deny the Special Permit component, though with very few legitimate reasons for not granting Site Plan Approval this could be a tricky decision to draft. If any towns have an example of an SPA denial, that would be helpful as well. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for any advice!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>Valerie Oorthuys, AICP</b><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Planning Director | Town of Stow <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#0A2F41'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Stow Planning Department<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>380 Great Road <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Stow, MA 01775<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>P: 978-897-5098<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><a href="http://www.stow-ma.gov/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>www.stow-ma.gov</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#196B24'><a href="https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/31a71e987dc24baa8717dced28e8f933/page/Home/?views=View-28%2CView-20%2CView-17"><span style='color:#196B24'>Stow Comprehensive Plan 2035</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/StowSurvey"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Provide your thoughts through our survey!</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>