Attachments

20260728-132033-d17-n-wtc sewer study planning ordinance.pdf

The council took up a measure at its July meeting to potentially encode in town ordinance a requirement for backers of proposed housing developments to perform a sewer usage impact study "at their own expense."

The matter was moved by Council President Joseph DePasquale, who brought it to the floor with Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto. The latter explained the proposal would make it a necessity to do so when an application is presented to the planning board. Currently it is not included in the language of the ordinance Chapter 15, Planning, Section 15-31.1. (See attachment for complete ordinance.)

"It says, 'deemed necessary by the board,'" DeSisto described. "So I think what the proposal is here is to change the term 'necessary' to 'shall.'"

"Shall" is a much more definitive, stringent legal term used in crafting municipal law. DePasquale added he wanted to include language to designate the size of proposed developments that would fall under the revision be of 50 or more units.

Ultimately, the council took up a suggestion made by DeSisto later in the discussion to have himself, Town Planning and Economic Development Director Bianca Policastro and Town Building Official Matt Cabral consult with the sewer department to determine what "an appropriate cutoff" number of units would be and return to the council with their findings.

A motion was made and approved to follow the solicitor's advice. However, prior to the move there was a healthy back-and-forth between the members on the merits of the amended language.

DeSisto elaborated saying currently a developer is required to put money in an escrow account to pay for studies the planning board requests to be performed during the process.

"Sometimes we've had no problems with applicants. Sometimes we do. But by and large, it's worked. The proposal that you have here is that it's going to go from the planning board deciding what needs to be done to everybody has to do it. That's the proposal," DeSisto added.

Councilor John Hanley expressed slight displeasure with the language, saying it is already incumbent upon both the applicant and the planning board to explore whether or not a development is feasible for a location given its impact on the sewer system.

As an example, he said, "You're adding 48 units. Does the road have the sewer capacity to handle that added 48 units? 
Maybe it's state law that gives the planning board the authority to require that you do that."

DePasquale said he simply wants to make sure town law mandates the planning board always includes a sewer impact review, adding, "I don't want a developer to have a board in the future who may not require it. Because right now it says 'may.'"

Again, Hanley, who in his day job serves as the building official for the City of Pawtucket, questioned the need for the adjustment.

"The problem I got is we're casting a huge net. Suppose you get somebody that comes in and they've got like a small, three-lot subdivision on a major sewer line. You're going make them pay?" he said. "I think it's better being discretionary, maybe beef up the language that says they have to pay for it."

Hanley continued on the obligation of the planning board, "They're the only ones that are going to know whether they need this impact study or not to make the determination. Not everybody is going need to provide them. Not everybody needs to provide a traffic plan.

"It's the planning board. They're the ones that see the plans. They're the experts in this, and they should know what they need and what they don't need. So I think it's the discretion of the board. I don't think we should make people pay for things that we don't need them to pay for."

When DePasquale wondered what would occur if applicants decline to oblige such a request, Hanley said, "Then they don't get approved. Then their application gets denied. But it's not mandatory...If the planning board asks for something, and they fail to comply, then they're (the board) well within their rights to deny the application."

DePasquale said he was concerned with the current language because there's the looming prospect a few significant housing developments could soon be up for consideration.

Though no specifics were mentioned, the recently sold former Fatima/Highlander School property on Market Street is seen by many as a prime location for single and/or multi-unit dwellings.

"Our sewer treatment facility is getting taxed heavily. We have potentially three major developments coming into town. You're looking at an addition of 3,000 units," he said.


Hanley countered by saying the revised ordinance would "catch the little guy with this big net" and if the planning board was remiss in requiring a sewer study on a proposal of greater scale then "you've got to start appointing better members."