Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff presents major ordinance package; board debates wetlands, penalties and multifamily separation
Summary
Staff presented a broad set of proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance changes—adding a definition for wetlands 'dominated by woody vegetation,' capping counted wetland area at 50% of required open space, tightening violation procedures (removing an arbitrary two‑year penalty), and adding multifamily separation language—prompting extended debate over enforcement tools and plan conformity.
Planning staff delivered an in‑depth review of a proposed package of zoning and subdivision ordinance changes that incorporate comments from the town attorney and aim to clarify wetlands, buffer protections and enforcement.
Key elements discussed included adding a definition for wetlands "dominated by woody vegetation" (staff said the definition draws on Army Corps methodologies and a 30x30 sample approach) to clarify which wetlands count toward the 50% maximum open space allowance; a proposal that no more than 50% of required open space be composed of such wetlands; and traffic‑study threshold clarifications.
The town attorney advised against an arbitrary two‑year penalty for applicants who timber lots before applying, saying case law emphasizes compliance over fixed time penalties. The attorney recommended allowing the board to refuse to review or to require corrective measures during review when defaults exist; staff revised the draft to remove the standalone two‑year prohibition and to retain language that allows refusal to review or denial until defaults are remedied. Board members debated whether the planning board could withhold density bonuses or refuse to review applications until a buffer was replanted; staff confirmed the board already has authority to refuse to review or deny applications under current review criteria.
Staff also proposed multifamily separation rules (a 200‑foot buffer variant was considered earlier) and new language allowing the planning board to set building separation based on factors such as access to light and air, emergency access and privacy. The board discussed the tradeoff between fixed numeric standards and flexible, project‑specific determinations: some members preferred clear numerical rules to give applicants predictability; others favored discretion to require more separation for taller buildings or emergency access.
Enforcement changes included explicit procedures for violation notices, the right to de novo appeal to the planning board, and state‑statute‑aligned language allowing daily fines; board members discussed fee structures and whether timbering before application should factor into density or bonus calculations.
Staff presented a table modeling the ordinance impacts on recent cluster subdivisions and estimated reductions in lots under the new requirements (ranging from roughly 12% to 66% reductions depending on parcel configuration), largely driven by the 50% wetlands rule and revised calculation methods. The board did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting but will hold a joint public hearing with the Board of Selectmen on Aug. 12 to continue review.
