Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater ANR topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer objects to stormwater peer‑review costs as commission issues order on Lot 1 and continues Lots 2 and 4 in Sandersdale subdivision
Summary
At a Charlton Conservation Commission meeting the commission closed the hearing and issued an Order of Conditions for Lot 1 in the Sandersdale ANR subdivision while continuing hearings on Lots 2 and 4 for missing stormwater/ well reports; the developer said the peer review and bylaw compliance could add about $15,000 per home.
The Conservation Commission closed the public hearing and issued an Order of Conditions for Lot 1 of the Sandersdale Road ANR subdivision after peer‑review comments were addressed, while continuing Notices of Intent for Lots 2 and 4 to June 18 pending stormwater peer review and well reports.
Glenn (surname not recorded), the project delineator and engineer, summarized field work and said the site includes an intermittent stream that becomes perennial downstream and that the team deliberately located buildings and septic outside the 200‑foot riverfront area. He described erosion control measures, a 50‑foot setback for certain equipment identified by peer review, and noted a state botanist will inspect a nonnative plant (referred to as “lungwort”) found in the area.
Chuck Black of Kendall Homes, who said he purchased several lots in the subdivision, told the commission he has built in Massachusetts for about 40 years and objected to applying the town’s stormwater bylaw to the individual lots because they are part of an ANR common plan of development. "I think that the way your bylaw is, it might add $15,000 in cost to building an individual home," Black said, asking the commission to waive additional peer review requirements for Lots 2 and 4 because he already paid for peer review on Lot 3.
Rose Conway, the conservation agent, told the commission the peer review requirement and enforcement align with the town’s regulations and said the application for Lots 2 and 4 was incomplete because she had not yet received well reports and other data cards needed to verify flagged resource areas. The commission voted to continue Lots 2 and 4 to June 18 pending the missing reports and peer review. For Lot 1 the agent had prepared draft special conditions and recommended closing the hearing and issuing the Order of Conditions; commissioners approved that motion.
The transcript shows the commission did not record a roll‑call tally in the text for these motions; the official minutes should include vote details. The commission noted that the ANR/common plan concept triggers stormwater review when combined disturbance exceeds one acre; the agent reiterated that regulation enforcement is required even for individual lots within a common plan of development.
The commission scheduled continued hearings for Lots 2 and 4 to allow the applicant to provide the outstanding well and stormwater peer‑review reports and to resolve bylaw compliance questions raised by the developer.
