pages: PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 5 | 8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). Vice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item. Ms. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item. Vice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction until 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the construction would proceed with all due haste. Ms. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual to have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the conditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be completed, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year. Vice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever. Mr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it should be placed on the Regular Agenda. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted that because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated. Mr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least amount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the construction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look forward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning terminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate that, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the submittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be pulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He requested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that the significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He inquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on track. Ms. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were using outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their plans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of Planning Board Minutes Page 5 August 22, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |