Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mendon meeting approves draft right‑of‑way rules, adds graphic reference and timing for final review
Summary
Participants approved a draft updating right‑of‑way and fencing rules, including a 3‑foot planting limit in the ROW, 14‑foot tree‑trim standard and a requirement to reference a graphic; work is to be wrapped up before a February review by state representatives.
Unidentified Speaker 1 moved to approve revisions to Mendon’s draft right‑of‑way and zoning language, and the motion passed by voice vote after participants agreed to include a graphic and remove one numbered subitem in section 5.
Unidentified Speaker 2, who led most of the discussion, said the draft clarifies planting and fence standards along city right‑of‑way, noting that "you can't plant in the city right of way unless you maintain it" and that the proposal will bar bushes taller than 3 feet and require trees to be trimmed up to 14 feet. The speaker also recommended changing the Clearview Triangle reference to match an accompanying illustration.
The meeting record shows participants debated how different right‑of‑way widths affect property lines — Speaker 2 flagged that 99‑foot rights of way do not reach the property line while 66‑foot rights of way reach the corner — and discussed driveway and sidewalk interactions with the ROW, emphasizing the draft's repeated principle that nothing should be placed in the right of way.
On stormwater, Speaker 2 urged use of vegetated swales over curb‑and‑gutter in many cases, saying "the EPA is really cracking down on cities, and the swale system removes a lot of contaminants from the water." They cautioned that dry swales can have maintenance issues (weeds, heat) and described trade‑offs between pollutant capture and long‑term upkeep. The speaker also noted the fire department's on‑site requirements for their properties.
The group discussed building‑code language and state requirements, with Speaker 2 noting the draft copied the state's snow‑load language and suggesting the state likely had reasons to include that provision. The meeting also included a short exchange about typical building permit durations (described as typically 12 months) and whether work must be on the owner’s lot to qualify for certain exceptions.
When Speaker 1 moved to approve "with the noted changes discussed previously," the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; the transcript records a verbal "Aye" and an announcement that the measure was approved. The record does not include a roll‑call tally of votes or names attached to the vote.
Speakers said the local draft should be finished before a February meeting so the mayor can invite state reviewers to complete their portion and determine funding. Participants were reminded that a shared Google Doc contains the working draft and notes and that it is easiest to view on a computer or tablet.
Next steps: finalize the edited language to explicitly reference the approved graphic, remove the agreed subitem from section 5 as recorded in the motion, and complete the local portion before the February review by state representatives.
