The Town of Marlborough Planning Board is one step closer to developing an updated and comprehensive site plan checklist with a goal of eliminating redundancies and saving applications money.

“What I think needs to be done — and what I basically did — was not one checklist, but two checklists,” board member James Garofalo said at the March 1 meeting. Garofalo has been studying the town code and crafting an updated checklist for several months after several instances in which the panel repeatedly turned applications away for incomplete applications.

Garofalo said that the first checklist would be dedicated solely to conceptual plans. The included information would be more general and would not require the sign off of hired professionals, and the list itself would be shorter. The second would be reserved for site plans ready for Planning Board observation and would require professional sign offs.
Separating the checklists for conceptualized plans and those ready for application would save the site owner money, Garolfao said. If their concept plan is out of the question, they will be turned away before wasting time and capital on a fruitless project, he argued.

“I was looking at the trees and not at the two forests and I was putting all the trees together in one forest and they really needed to be separated out,” Garofalo said of the two lists. The board member took the revision further by including more requirements from the town code in each list so the applicant would not be surprised further down the line. In the past, applications were sent back to revise their plans for neglecting regulations outlined in the town code but omitted in the checklist. While the newer lists would be longer, it would present all requirements from the get-go, thus saving the applicant the trouble of returning for multiple meetings and money to continue their projects.

Though Planning Board Chairperson Chris Brand found Garofalo’s two-checklist plan agreeable, panel member Manny Cauchi failed to see how a longer application would benefit the applicant.

“He added over 20 items to the original one. A professional will look at that and say ‘I gotta answer and think about 20 more items,’” Cauchi said, adding that the lengthy list would intimidate applicants from pursuing their projects. “We have to be mindful of the cost. I‘m driven by streamlining things and being cost effective and I don’t think in the direction we’re going in we have that in mind … we don’t want people not to invest and develop because our process is very arduous. We want to have a nice easy process.”

Cauchi suggested that instead of having two checklists for applicants at different stages of their process that the board develop separate lists for different projects. His reasoning was simply that every application is different. Cauchi proposed crafting a short version of the site plan for mixed-use, special permit and special purpose projects that have very little change to the original plan.

Cindy Lanzetta compared the proposed checklist to those of the nearby towns: the Town of Newburgh’s is at 21 pages and 38 items, the Town of Lloyd at 20 pages and 28 items and the Town of New Paltz at 14 pages and 38 items. Garofalo’s draft checklist includes 53 items, though its page length is not clear.

“We’re not crazy here. I’m not saying there isn’t room for improvement but if you’re curious start looking at the surrounding towns and you’ll see that we’re in the ballpark,” Lanzetta said, supporting the lengthy list.

Earlier in the meeting, Brand had raised the idea of potentially offering applicants an information consultation with the town’s lawyers for a flat fee. The discussion portion of the meetings, during which the professional counsel leaves for, typically involve lines of questioning the board does not feel confident answering, he noted.

“It seems as though most of the applicants’ questions for the discussion portion are highly related to your fields of expertise. There are always legal questions or engineering questions,” Brand told lawyers Pat Hines and Jeff Battistoni. “Would there be an opportunity perhaps for some type of flat fee that we could charge the applicants as far as the discussion goes if we need you?”

Hines said another board he works with offers applicants an informal appearance for $250 to get a legal opinion. He did note that the opportunity would be up to the board — other towns would reject the notion and send the applicant to a consultant.

No motions were made in regards to the checklist or potential consultation. The Planning Board will finalize the revised checklist at its March 15 meeting, but will continue evaluating whether offering consultation is a good fit for Marlborough.