Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board declines proposed alternative survey monument
Summary
The Chesterfield Planning Board unanimously rejected a surveyor’s request to use an anchored iron‑pole monument as not functionally equivalent to the town’s Land Development Regulations; the applicant would need a Town Engineer’s approval and bear the cost if resubmitted.
Chairman Joe Brodbine said a surveyor for a recently approved subdivision asked to use a square‑base iron‑pole monument with anchors—the type used in the Town of Hinsdale—as a substitute for the town’s standard monument. Planning Board member James Hancock argued the iron pole would rust and said it was “not functionally equivalent” to the Town’s requirements. Vice Chairwoman Maria Bissell also opposed the substitute.
Brodbine noted the Land Development Regulations do not permit the requested substitute unless a Town Engineer determines it is an acceptable substitute for the existing regulations. Selectman Representative Fran Shippee added that if the Town must hire an engineer to evaluate the substitute, the cost would be paid by the subdivision applicant.
Hancock moved to decline the use of the alternative monument under Land Use Regulation 700.5; Bissell seconded. The board voted unanimously to approve the motion.
The board recorded that an applicant may reapply with an engineer’s determination addressing functional equivalence and durability; the Town’s standard monument requirements remain in force.
