Town of Spencer
Subdivision Regulations audit
10 things worth a decision in
the Subdivision Regulations: places where it does not agree with something else in it, with
the statute it is adopted under, with the bylaw it works beside and with itself, and places where it would be easier to administer written another
way. Each names the evidence, and says whose decision it is.
None of them are corrected in the published text. The
regulation on this site reads exactly as Spencer prints it, and
changing any of this is an amendment rather than a correction.
Against the text current through April 3, 2007
There is also an audit of the Zoning Bylaw.
Needs a drafting decision 5
The regulations contradict themselves or are incomplete here. Only Spencer can settle these, and only by amendment — correcting them here would state as law something Spencer has never adopted.
§ 1.6A drafter's note is printed in § 1.6
The text of § 1.6 contains '(check date!)', a note the drafter left for themselves rather than a rule. It is published here exactly as the Board's file carries it.
- a way in existence as of March 7, 1963 (check date!), that in the opinion of the planning board has sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction
A one-word correction at the Board's next amendment; the date it asks about is the Subdivision Control Law's effective date in Spencer.
found by comparison
§ 2.3§ 2.3.E.3 cites § 3.C.7 for the Town Clerk's certification, and that provision is § 3.C.9
The timeliness rule for definitive plans counts 90 days "from the submission of the plan (as certified by the Town Clerk, see § 3.C.7)". In the published text, item C.7 of § 2.3 is the impact-study requirement for proposals of 25 or more units; the filing with the Town Clerk is item C.9. The citation reads as written before two items were added to the application list, or as a slip. It is published as the Board prints it, and the link goes to C.7.
- § 2.3.E.3.a: “within 90 days of the submission of the plan (as certified by the Town Clerk, see § 3.C.7)”
- § 2.3.C.7: “Impact studies are required for proposals creating 25 dwelling units or more”
- § 2.3.C.9: “Filing with Town Clerk: It is the applicant's responsibility to file notice of submission with the Town Clerk's Office”
A one-character correction at the Board's next amendment. The 90-day period itself matches MGL c. 41, § 81U.
read from the Town's materials
§ 2.4§ 2.4 numbers two provisions 3.
Two consecutive provisions of § 2.4 carry the marker '3.': 'Phasing. An approved preliminary plan for an OSRD proposed t' and 'The applicant shall submit a definitive subdivision plan as '. A citation to that marker names two different rules.
- 3. Phasing. An approved preliminary plan for an OSRD proposed to be constructed in
- 3. The applicant shall submit a definitive subdivision plan as provided in Section
A renumbering at the Board's next amendment. The markers are published here as the Board's file prints them.
found by comparison
§ 3.4The contents list 'C. Time period'; § 3.4 has that marker on another provision
The document's own table of contents lists 'C. Time period', and the provision carrying C. at that point in § 3.4 reads 'location access said park or parks shall be located in the subdivision'. The contents were not regenerated after the body changed.
- Contents: C. Time period
- Body: C. location access said park or parks shall be located in the subdivision in such a manner as
Regenerate the table of contents at the Board's next revision. The pages here are built from the body, so they are right.
found by comparison
§ 3.5§ 3.5 cites § 3.E.1 without saying of which article
Read within Article 3, where it appears, the citation names a provision that does not exist. Article 2's § 2.3.E.1 does exist and is the provision the sentence describes, and the link goes there.
- …ply and sewage disposal, in compliance with Title V. As stipulated in § 3.E.1 of these subdivision regulations, the Health Agent or Board of Health…
Name the article in the citation at the Board's next amendment.
found by comparison
Worth taking up at the next amendment 5
Nothing here contradicts anything, and nothing here exceeds the statute. These are places where what is written makes the regulations harder to administer, to cite or to read than it needs to be. Each is still a change only Spencer can make.
§ 1.6§ 1.6 defines “SKETCH PLAN” and nothing uses it
The term appears in the definitions and nowhere else in the regulations, so the definition has no effect. It reads as a leftover from an earlier draft.
- SKETCH PLAN a plan drawn with rough lines to illustrate in general terms the approximate locations for boundaries, streets, open spaces, and other elements of a development, for the purpose of conveyi
Drop the definition, or use the term where the regulations mean it.
found by comparison
§ 1.6§ 1.6 restates 3 of MGL c. 41, § 81L's definitions in its own words
MGL c. 41, § 81L defines these terms for every subdivision regulation in the Commonwealth, and its definition governs. A copy in the regulations reads differently already, and will drift further each time the General Court amends the statute.
- lot: the regulations say “an area of land with definite boundaries in one ownership which is used or is available for use as the site of one or more buildings (i.e. a…”; the statute says “an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings.…”
- preliminary plan: the regulations say “a sketch plan of a proposed subdivision or re-subdivision of land, typically prepared before detailed engineering design is done, for the pu…”; the statute says “a plan of a proposed subdivision or resubdivision of land drawn on tracing paper, or a print thereof, showing (a) the subdivision name, boun…”
- subdivision: the regulations say “the division of a tract of land into two or more lots, including re-subdivision. when appropriate to the context, the term shall relate to t…”; the statute says “the division of a tract of land into two or more lots and shall include resubdivision, and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to…”
Cite MGL c. 41, § 81L's definitions rather than restating them, and define locally only the terms the statute does not.
found by comparison
§ 2.1Web addresses are printed in § 2.1 and § 2.3
An address on a state website is not something the Board controls, and the ones here date from 2007. When it moves, the regulation points at nothing, and the standard it was pointing at is still in force.
- § 2.1: www.mass.gov/mgis
- § 2.3: www.mass.gov/mgis
- § 2.3: www.mass.gov/mgis
Name the standard and the agency; leave the address out.
found by comparison
§ 2.3Dollar figures are fixed in the text of § 2.3
An amount written into a regulation stays at its 2007 value until the Board amends the regulation, where a fee schedule adopted separately can be brought up to date without one. The application fees in the same article already say “contact ODIS for amount”.
- § 2.3: Prior to the start of construction (typically at the pre-construction meeting) the developer shall submit a check in the amount of $5,000 made payable to the To
- § 2.3: This money will be deposited into a special account for that subdivision, and when depleted to $2,500 a request for additional funds will be made unless the Dir
Move the amounts to the fee schedule and have the text refer to it.
found by comparison
§ 3.1§ 3.1.C incorporates "the Spencer Planning Board's design guidelines", and none are in the Board's file
Article 3 opens by asking every subdivision plan to follow "the Spencer Planning Board's design guidelines in effect at the time of application". No subdivision design guidelines are among the materials the Town supplied for this project; the only design guidelines in the file are the 2019 Town Center Mixed Use District Design Guidelines, which are a zoning document for one district. If the Board has never adopted subdivision design guidelines, the provision asks applicants to follow a document that does not exist.
- § 3.1.C: “Any subdivision plan should follow to the extent practicable the Spencer Planning Board's design guidelines in effect at the time of application”
- Town materials supplied for the Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision Regulations review: no subdivision design guidelines; the 2019 Town Center Mixed Use District Design Guidelines only
Ask the Board whether subdivision design guidelines were ever adopted. If they were, publish them with the regulations; if not, either adopt them or drop the reference.
read from the Town's materials
