That Town Plan specifically addresses the same provisions of the town's new subdivision regulations, which some opponents insist are unprecedented, uncalled for, illegal and a violation of property rights.
The provision in question is a section of the new regulations that calls for members of the development review board to consider how a proposed development's roads fit in with existing and future roads, public and private. The old regulations said that "a right of way across the subdivider's property may be required." The new regulation says no such thing.
The new regs call for the DRB to look at subdivisions and proposed development and try to "maximize connectivity within the subdivision and to adjoining parcels and road networks." Could be just semantics, but in legal parlance, there's a world of difference between 'may' require a right of way and 'maximize connectivity.'
Both the old and new regulations derive their authority from the 2005 Town Plan, which addresses the issue of future roads and road connectivity as it relates to subdivision and new development in several places. Regarding future road connections, the Town Plan references a 1997 local and state study which looked at future road alignments which would accommodate historic traffic and usage and future subdivision and development patterns.
The Town Plan reads: "The construction of these roads could take place in response to proposed private developments on land within the potential corridor, or through the public process of laying out and constructing town roads. Should the town choose the latter, an official map should be developed to provide a mechanism for acquiring future rights-of-way. Regardless of the mechanism used, future development should not occur in a manner that would eliminate the possibility of aligning a feasible route through designated corridors."
Asking planners and the DRB to consider future road networks and connectivity between developments is not beyond the reach of what the town's select board approved in the 2005 Town Plan.
That same Town Plan specifically calls for planners and the DRB to address these issues: "Development and land uses that would adversely impact traffic safety, the condition of town roads or over-burden road capacity shall be prohibited unless appropriate mitigating actions can be implemented. The expansion of the town's road network should occur in an integrated and coordinated manner; specific road connections, described in this plan, should be pursued by the town in conjunction with private developers. Wherever feasible and/or called for in this plan, new or expanded roads serving proposed subdivisions should be configured to provide connections to adjacent properties."(emphasis added.)
The sky is not falling. The proposed subdivision regulations do not impose draconian new measures allowing the DRB to seize property, create roads, demand rights of way and all the other dire threats that are being warned of. The regulations are exactly what their authors and supporters said they are -- an update of regulations adopted in 1988 which, having been tested by almost 20 years worth of use, need updating and improving.
{loadnavigation}
