Williamstown Planning Board Narrowing in on Subdivision Bylaw Changes
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Planning Board late last month discussed specific features of what it plans to pass as a new subdivision control bylaw this year.
The board long has discussed the complex set of regulations as being out of date and cumbersome to both potential developers and the board itself, which has needed to hear requests for waivers of outdated rules for the handful of residential subdivisions that have been proposed in town in recent years.
This spring, the town engaged consultants from Northampton's Dodson and Flinker Landscape Architecture and Planning to go through the existing bylaw, compare it to more contemporary regulations in other communities and help craft a revised bylaw.
Unlike the zoning bylaw, where amendments require approval of town meeting, the subdivision control bylaw is a creation of the Planning Board, which can make changes on its own after a public hearing process it hopes to complete this year.
At a special Planning Board meeting on May 26, Dillon Sussman of Dodson and Flinker and his colleagues walked the board through a dozen different decision points that the board must resolve — either by leaving the bylaw as is or making a change — and offered suggestions based on best practices.
All of the issues are technical and ranged from the fundamental, like how the bylaw will define types of subdivisions, to the highly specific, like what turning radii will be required in new streets that are constructed to serve planned developments.
One example of a topic that came up in the recent approval of a four-home subdivision off Summer Street is stormwater management.
Sussman showed the board language from the bylaws in three towns (Grafton, South Hadley and Northfield) that all reference low-impact development or LID, an environmentally friendly approach that uses landscaping and design techniques to manage rainfall rather than immediately piping it away.
"We think we can do a little better than [the examples cited] by having clear standards for LID implementation, ownership and maintenance," Sussman told the planners. "We have requiring LID to be on private property and requiring maintenance by a homeowner, [homeowners association] or [condominium owners association], and the town wouldn't take on responsibility for maintaining LID within the right-of-way.
"The next question is which LID measures are appropriate for which locations and what are the variables for setting requirements. We're thinking the amount of stormwater to be managed, the space available for stormwater management and maybe soil conditions and water table conditions."
Planning Board Chair Kenneth Kuttner pointed out that one of the challenges for developers — and those granting approvals — in Williamstown is the variety of soil conditions and, hence, the quality of drainage in different parts of town.
"Another option we talked about is you should have … LID is required in any of the rural districts as a first approach, as long as it goes on private property," Dodson and Flinker's Dana Spang Menon told the board. "But the Planning Board may grant waivers based on conditions, so you could say, 'inappropriate soil conditions, lack of depth to water tables.' So you have the ability to grant a case-by-case waiver, but you have a specific standards you'd use to grant a waiver.
"That gives you the flexibility without it being too squishy."
Kuttner noted during the meeting that while some waivers are inevitable, the board wants to have parameters so that it is not perceived as granting them "capriciously."
Town Planner Andrew Groff, who advises the Planning Board, said Menon's approach would work.
"Even in the town neighborhoods, we have areas that are highly developed in town where you're never going to ... For example, next door to town hall, the museum that is going up has very poor soil. They're doing lots of LID, but they have the ability to do that in a way a small-scale residential developer may not. Again, we're trying to promote affordability and make this functional."
The affordability question also came up in the context of underground placement of utilities, currently required under town code.
Dodson and Flinker's recommendation is that the law be amended to specify waivers to that requirement will be granted when a proposed development, "when a project provides other substantial community benefits of equivalent or greater value, such as provision of affordable housing or publicly accessible open space."
Menon challenged that idea.
"I appreciate the waiver is to promote affordable developments," she said. "But I don't love the idea of creating that pathway through things that are going to create a visual change, so affordable developments become visually different from market rate developments."
Kuttner agreed that Menon made a good point. The board members recalled that when they granted the underground utility waiver for the Summer Street subdivision, the applicant, Habitat for Humanity, had specific concerns related to supply chain disruptions in underground equipment related to recent wildfires in California.
Kuttner also noted that the proposed subdivision off Summer Street was an infill development in a neighborhood that already has above ground utilities.
"This does highlight the difficulty in writing specific waiver requirements," Menon said. "There are often things that you can't foresee that seem very logical when they're presented.
"I think you can also write strong language around that — something that presents a burden of cost disproportionate to the project size. You see it a lot in zoning regulations. The Zoning Board is often trying to weigh whether a variance can be granted based on specific but not super specific tenets. We'll do our best to come up with options for you to consider."
The Planning Board will continue considering all parts of the subdivision bylaw, from road construction to curb requirements, at its next regular meeting on Tuesday, June 9.
Tags: stormwater, zoning,
