<div dir="auto">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. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Daniel Fortier, AICP Retired Planner </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, 8:42\u202fPM William Cole via MassPlanners <<a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">massplanners@masscptc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
<span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12pt">Thanks in advance for insight regarding PB responsibilities and options regarding a current Special Permit application, which has been briefly continued. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
<span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12pt">(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 My question is this: should PB require the application be withdrawn and a new application (with new maps and details) be required?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. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
<span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12pt">thanks very much,</span>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
<span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12pt">Bill Cole</span>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:#333333">
<span style="font-family:helvetica;font-size:12pt">Hardwick MA </span>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
MassPlanners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:MassPlanners@masscptc.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">MassPlanners@masscptc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>