Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board keeps site-plan recording, routes appeals to ZBA; floodplain bylaw sent for DCR review

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board decided to retain recording requirements for site-plan approvals, accepted legal counsel's revision to allow zoning board of appeals review before Land Court, and will forward floodplain bylaw edits to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for confirmation.

At its May 22, 2025 meeting, the Hubbardston Planning Board reviewed Article 29 (site plan review) and related floodplain bylaw comments from legal counsel and state reviewers. The board agreed to keep its recording requirement for site-plan decisions, accepted a change to preserve administrative appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals before Land Court, and directed staff to forward revised floodplain language to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) for further review.

The recording issue matters because legal counsel recommended removing mandatory registry-of-deeds recording of site-plan decisions to reduce applicant cost. Town Planner Alec Wade and board members favored retaining recording to keep a single, public record; Wade noted recording adds a “few hundred dollars” in fees but can reduce administrative oversights. “As a planner, my personal preference is to have every decision rendered to a property recorded with the registry of deeds,” he said. Board members and one member, Erica, explicitly supported recording; the chair directed staff to strike the legal counsel’s suggested deletion and keep the original recording language.

On appeals, legal counsel recommended directing appeals from site-plan decisions straight to Land Court to avoid pitting two boards against each other; Wade explained that most towns allow the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to hear challenges first and that the ZBA’s review can reduce litigation. The board accepted Carolyn Murray’s proposed revision to permit administrative appeals to the ZBA before a court filing.

On the floodplain bylaw, the board heard that KP Law’s edits were mostly stylistic and that one DCR reviewer will take a second pass the following week. Leanne (staff) confirmed the DCR contact would review the revised draft and noted a request from DCR to keep the subdivision/site-plan section in the bylaw. The board accepted Carolyn’s scrivener edits and instructed staff to forward the corrected draft to DCR for confirmation.

Next steps: staff will keep site-plan recording in the bylaw language, incorporate Carolyn Murray’s revisions to the appeals language, and send the corrected floodplain bylaw to the Department of Conservation and Recreation for review. The board asked staff to confirm the correct, final versions are on the warrant before Town Meeting.