Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adequate Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board adopts 'adequate infrastructure' wording, tightens water and traffic tests
Summary
The board approved new Section 400 language on "Adequate Infrastructure," voting 5-0 to replace "will" with "shall," change an "or" to "and" in certain tests, and remove a parenthetical phrase about level of service. Public commenters urged stricter water-language and raised concerns about school impacts and legal defensibility.
The Windham Planning Board on Feb. 18 voted to add a definition for "Adequate Infrastructure" to Section 400 of the Site Plan Regulations and to tighten related wording on water availability, traffic and service levels.
The board approved three specific edits: replace "will" with "shall," change a connective from "or" to "and" in the applicable standard, and remove a parenthetical phrase that read, "level of service will be maintained at the current level or improved." Jack Gattinella moved to adopt the changes; Derek Monson seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
Public commenters urged stricter wording for water availability and capacity. Vanessa Nysten of Edgewood Road asked the board to use "shall" rather than "would" for water-availability language and proposed wording to require capacity "to the proposed project and reasonably anticipated other water users." The board discussed whether a developer's responsibility should be limited to the proposed project; Mr. Monson said a developer should be expected to provide water for the proposed project but questioned broader obligations.
Wayne Morris and others referenced state-level attention on related issues (Mr. Morris cited HB 631) and urged clear, defensible language; Mr. Morris also recommended language indicating water "shall be available." Mark Kovacs raised an implementation concern, noting Windham issues roughly 50 single-family building permits per year and saying that would produce an estimated ~37 new students in the school district from those homes, and warned the town that adopting broad requirements could expose it to risk. The board discussed school-impact fees, noting limitations on how impact fees may be used.
Members said town counsel had advised the board and that some of the language could require defense if challenged. The board approved the edits and instructed staff to circulate state-level information and to make any necessary clarifications before future hearings when appropriate.
