Friday, March 12, 2010
Planning Board considers Occupancy Permits
The item that surprised the Planning Board at its March 8 meeting is the possibility that the Fire Department, as a condition for its sign-off for an Occupancy Permit, could request changes in common driveway or roadway configuration that could be in conflict with Special Permits or Definitive Plans that were approved by the board. Developer William Costello brought up the topic when he appeared before the board to discuss final details for two of his projects, Carriage Way and Greystone Crossing.
Costello said that such Fire Department conditions for an Occupancy Permit, usually involving roadway turning radius, were reasonable and “could make sense” from a safety standpoint and he was happy to make such changes. But he was concerned that implementing them could be at odds with as-built plans, special permit conditions or roadway/driveway cut limitations imposed by a Scenic Roadway hearing.
Board Chair David Freedman said, “This is quite a shock. It is not a question of reasonableness; it is a question of process and jurisdiction.” The board decided to look into the situation.
Regarding Carriage Way development, the board has retained $5,000 in the escrow account pending confirmation that several dead or dying trees along the way had been replaced last year and were still viable. Having received confirmation from Superintendent of Public Works Gary Davis, the board voted to release the $5,000 and accrued interest to Costello.
Costello’s request for certification of satisfaction of Special Permit conditions for the Conservation Cluster at Greystone Crossing (Cross Street) devolved into a discussion of Occupancy Permits. Occupancy Permits are documents that signify that the building inspector is satisfied and has approved a building as being suitable for occupation. An Occupancy Permit is not a statement that all the building work is necessarily complete; rather only that the building is “suitable to occupy” from a health and safety point of view.
Subdivision Rules and Regulations
In other business, the board, on recommendation of Town Counsel, decided not to implement changes to its Subdivision Rules and Regs other than those listed in last week’s Mosquito. Minor corrections in tense and corrections in internal references were deemed to be in scope. With no further public comment, the Planning Board closed the hearing.∆
© 2010 The