Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rpdi Buffers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Essex planners debate buffer width and active reforestation for RPDI district
Summary
Commissioners and dozens of public commenters debated whether to expand RPDI interior buffers from 50 to 75 feet, favor function‑based reforestation standards, and require stronger enforcement and longer maintenance periods to preserve screening, reduce noise, and protect stormwater functions.
The Essex Planning Commission spent a sizable portion of its June 11 meeting debating rules for buffers in the RPDI industrial district, with commissioners and public commenters split over whether to increase the interior buffer from 50 to 75 feet and how prescriptive reforestation requirements should be.
Staff explained that increasing a 50‑foot interior buffer to 75 feet could reduce the developable acreage used in a prior settlement affecting parcels owned by an entity identified in the record (referred to in discussion as Allen Brook development). Commissioners cautioned that changing the width could require reopening or amending that settlement and might only affect a handful of lots.
The conversation shifted to function: several commissioners said a wider buffer is only valuable if it performs — providing year‑round visual screening, sound attenuation and pollution reduction — and urged strong planting standards, layered vegetation, and better enforcement. Commissioner discussion repeatedly emphasized requiring a landscape or reforestation plan for the 50‑foot buffer where vegetation is inadequate, rather than relying on a purely prescriptive, one‑size‑fits‑all species list.
Multiple public commenters described local experience of tree loss, trucks idling near residential yards, and stormwater concerns. One commenter said the community needs assurances that forest/landscape management plans will actually be implemented and enforced. Another asked commissioners to record a formal vote so residents can see where each commissioner stands on buffer width.
Commissioners and speakers also discussed enforcement and monitoring: the draft reforestation language includes monitoring periods (a minimum three‑year monitoring period is in the current draft), notice and violation procedures, and periodic review; several commissioners said three years was too short and advocated longer or perpetual maintenance obligations for buffer plantings. Staff said the town is pursuing interim technical assistance from the state while the town’s tree warden position is vacant.
No final change to the RPDI buffer width was adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked staff and the RPDI working group to refine the language, focus on planting standards and enforceable maintenance plans, and return with a revised draft for further review.
