Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board seeks clarity on site plan review, peer permits after Ted Christie case
Summary
Planning board members debated whether Ted Christie’s recent submission should proceed as a peer permit or site-plan review, raised fee inconsistencies and agreed to put process and possible ordinance clarifications on the next agenda.
Members of the Westport Island Planning Board used a portion of the June 23 special meeting to unpack how the town’s site-plan review ordinance interacts with permits such as peer (pier) permits, using a pending submission from Ted Christie as the working example.
The issue: April (speaker 3) said she believed the board had agreed to treat Mr. Christie’s application as a peer permit, which she said would be quicker for the applicant. The chair, after consulting MMA guidance, said site-plan review is a distinct layer within the permitting framework and that applicants are allowed to submit piecemeal, though doing so can create redundant work and additional fees.
Fees and fairness: April and other members raised a practical question: if a project is processed as site-plan review then later requires a peer permit, should the applicant pay both fees? Transcript discussion cited a $100 site-plan review fee and a $175 peer-permit fee. One member and town staff said that, depending on the particulars, the correct approach could be a site-plan revision or bundled submission to avoid duplicated payment and processing. Gary (town staff, speaker 9) recommended treating the matter as a commercial use with both site-plan review and the peer permit application if the new activity changes the use; he suggested reviewing the ordinance’s applicability and revision rules.
Process clarity and next steps: Members requested clearer internal guidance and suggested bringing a formal agenda item to the July 8 meeting to vote on how to treat pending applications and whether to propose ordinance amendments that would reduce ambiguity in future piecemeal submissions. The chair said he would place the question on the next agenda so the board can “speak with one voice” about the process, fees, and whether applicants should be encouraged to submit comprehensive materials.
No board votes were taken at the meeting; members asked staff to compile relevant ordinance text and fee schedules and the chair said the board will make a formal decision at the next regular meeting.
