Personal Thoughts on the Land Use Partnership Act – Part 5 – Changes to Special Permits

The proposed legislation includes a small proposal to modify the Special Permit process for communities. While a small proposal, it has a significant impact on the process. The relevant section is below:

10) Duration of special permits

Modify the fourteenth paragraph of Section 9 of Chapter 40A as follows:

Zoning ordinances or by-laws shall provide that a special permit granted under this section shall lapse within a specified period of time, not lessmore than two years from the date of the filing of such approval with the city or town clerk, which shall not include such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to in section seventeen, from the grant thereof, if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause or, in the case of permit for construction, if or construction has not yet begun by such date, except as extended for good cause by the permit granting authority. Such extension shall not include such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to in section seventeen. The aforesaid minimum period of two years may, by ordinance or by-law, be increased to a longer period.

As with the Site Plan Review and Vesting discussions. The proposal calls for changing the period for which a Special Permit is granted to a minimum of two years over the current maximum of such a time period. Two years is a long time within the planning framework. Conditions change, new studies are completed. Decisions may be made that previously allowed uses are not compatible with adjacent land uses or natural resources. The proposal appears to be a reaction to some actions by communities to address problems with a particular type of development subsequent to such a project being applied for. Unfortunately, this change is extremely punitive, and would provide a minimum protection that is equal to 20% of the life span of a certified local comprehensive plan. When coupled with the vesting changes previously discussed, the new community plan may not impact many projects, as vesting could protect projects through-out the proposed ten-year life of a plan.

Personally, I believe that the minimum grant of a Special Permit should be left as it is. A revision could consider extending the period within which a Planning Board could extend a Special Permit. Such a change would be community and developer friendly. The changes currently proposed are not community friendly.