Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs curb‑and‑gutter changes with clearer waiver language requested
Summary
The board recommended a text amendment (Docket T202507) to allow density and watershed exemptions, engineered alternatives and limited staff waivers to the city curb‑and‑gutter requirement while asking staff to reword statement 4 for clarity before council review.
The Reedsville Planning Board on Dec. 17 recommended that City Council consider amendments to the Reedsville Subdivision Regulations that would create density‑based and watershed‑based exceptions to the city’s curb‑and‑gutter requirement, allow engineered alternatives, and give staff limited authority to grant waivers when a licensed engineer provides an approved stormwater management plan.
Planning Director Drew described the proposal (Docket T202507). Key provisions include: a density exception exempting single‑family subdivisions with fewer than six units per acre and townhome/multifamily projects with fewer than eight units per acre from traditional curb‑and‑gutter; an exemption for developments in the Troublesome Creek Watershed allowing vegetated ditches and culverts instead of curb and gutter to reduce impervious surface; a discretionary waiver if a licensed engineer submits an approved stormwater plan demonstrating an alternative is acceptable; prohibition on underground driveway piping in certain watershed contexts; and a tie‑in requirement when new curb and gutter would abut existing curb/gutter in a phased development unless an exemption applies.
Board members pushed back on the degree of staff discretion in waiver decisions and raised procedural concerns about whether such determinations could be quasi‑judicial, requiring a different approval pathway. One member asked how the city would avoid conflicts if a developer’s engineer produced the waiver documentation; Drew said the city uses contracted engineers (McGill) for secondary review and can seek state review when necessary, and that language could be revised to clarify the review process.
Several members recommended rewording statement 4 to avoid misinterpretation; staff agreed to reword that sentence for clarity while keeping the substantive exemptions proposed. After discussion, a board member moved to recommend approval of the amendment (Docket T202507) to City Council with the stipulation that statement 4 be clarified for intent; the motion carried.
Next step: staff will reword statement 4 for clarity and include the board’s comments in the packet to City Council.
