Franklin Planning Board to consider bylaw requiring renotice after repeated postponements

The Planning Board of the Township of Franklin directed staff on Feb. 19 to prepare draft bylaw language that would require applicants to renotice hearings if a scheduled hearing is repeatedly postponed, a change members said would reduce public confusion when applications are carried multiple times.

Chairman Joseph Orsini introduced the item, recalling a previously postponed Hamilton Street application and saying the proposed change would “balance” the burden between applicants and the public. Peter, identified in the record as board counsel, confirmed the board has jurisdiction to consider an amendment to internal bylaws. Orsini described a proposed approach in which an applicant would not have to renotice for a single continuation but would be required to renotice if a hearing has been postponed more than once. The board agreed to ask the zoning board to consider a similar approach so both boards would follow consistent procedures.

Board members raised implementation questions about cost and fairness to homeowners. One member asked what the renoticing burden would cost; a staff member explained applicants must mail certified notices to property owners within a 200-foot list and pay for legal notices in the newspaper, and that the cost can be meaningful for homeowners. Board members and staff said the proposed draft would preserve discretion for equitable situations: the board could decide, on a case-by-case basis, not to require renotice in instances such as weather cancellations or where the postponement arises from the board’s own scheduling problems.

The board asked staff “please prepare something for us to consider at our next meeting.” No formal vote was recorded on the bylaw language; members agreed to review a draft at the next meeting and to coordinate with the zoning board and counsel on final wording.

Quoted testimony (selected): “If a hearing is scheduled and no hearing takes place… if they postpone again, then they do [have to renotice],” Chairman Joseph Orsini said, explaining the proposed threshold. A board member asked, “When they have to re-notice, it is a cost to the applicant or attorney, whomever,” to which staff responded that certified mail to a 200-foot list and newspaper notices would be required.

Ending: Staff will draft bylaw language for the board’s next meeting; the board asked that the zoning board consider a matching rule and that the draft preserve discretion to avoid imposing undue cost or confusion on homeowner applicants.