By a near-unanimous vote, the Marlborough Town Board approved its revised ridgeline rules at its Monday, August 26 meeting. The lone abstention came from Councilman Dave Zambito, who owns property along the ridgeline and has stated on several occasions that it would be improper for him to cast an affirmative or negative vote.

 

In discussing the measure, Town Supervisor Scott Corcoran noted that while the current measure was proposed on April 8, the first version of the revised ridgeline code was announced last December 11. The topic dominated the board’s agenda for four months, with multiple, well-attended public hearings taking place. In his remarks, Corcoran and other board members described the current set of rules as a compromise, which considered the views expressed by the opponents to the proposal as well as its proponents.

 

“I always said we’re going to come somewhere in the middle,” Corcoran said. “I said this is not Washington, D.C., where one side always wins, and the other one doesn’t. We are taking your comments, and we are taking them seriously. We are adding things into the law that are making it better.”

 

Corcoran also rejected suggestions that the rule revisions would have an adverse impact on the environment, particularly with respect to stormwater runoff. “We are not affecting drainage – we basically gave someone that’s building a one-story house or a two-story house a little extra room to move on their property,” he said.

 

Councilwoman Sherida Sessa echoed Corcoran’s sentiment. “If we [went] back to the drawing board on this code, I would err on the side of giving more flexibility to the property owner,” Sessa stated. “I think we’ve done a lot of compromising …we’ve clarified a lot of the gray area in this code, [and] we have preserved the Integrity of the ridgeline. At the end of the day that supports the town’s comprehensive plan.”

 

Three people spoke at the meeting in opposition to the new rules. The new regulations are officially known as the “Ridgeline and Steep Slope Protection” code, and can be found in Chapter 155, Article IX, Section 155-41.1 of the Marlborough Town Code. 

 

Mici Simonofsky, chairperson of the town’s Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC), read a letter from the committee that expressed its sentiments in opposition to several key revisions to the rules. The committee commended the town board for including a variety of elements it had recommended, such as colors and lighting to ensure that any new structures complement the ridgeline environment.

 

However, they called for the 50-foot setback rule to be reinstated, which puts a height restriction of 50 feet on structures that are built near ridgeline points. The CAC also called for the code to continue to specify that the town’s Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals play a key role in determining conformance. 

 

“This omission seems unwise at best,” said Simonofsky. “It also leads to a new ambiguity in the code for the applicant’s responsibility. You have stated you are trying to correct such confusion by introducing a change to this code. We feel that consistency of the wording as originally created would maintain the protections and duties of all town employees and agencies… we request that you vote no on this resolution.”

 

Cindy Lanzetta, a member of the town Planning Board, disputed Corcoran’s characterization of the revised rules as being consistent with the town Comprehensive Plan. “If the board would reject this revision and take a collaborative approach, we could make this a much better code…that would end confusion for property owners and be consistent with the Master Plan’s goal to protect our Marlboro Mountains,” Lanzetta said. 

Milton resident Maribeth King noted that the language in the revised code make the town’s code enforcement officer and town engineer the sole authorities for approving – or rejecting – ridgeline building applications. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals should also be included, she said. King also pointed to construction atop the ridgeline that already has occurred without repercussions for the property owner.

 

“We can only surmise that with the proposed resolution landowners will feel unimpeded in what is done with their land, knowing that the likelihood of being held accountable is low,” said King. “Your expressed desire for transparency and to do what’s best for Marlboro is jeopardized by your actions on this measure. Passing this resolution as it stands will leave a stain on this board that will long be remembered.”

 

In addition to the ridgeline resolution, the Town Board okayed two measures concerning the Highway Department.

 

• A resolution allowing the Highway Department to post a 2008 John Deere Tractor for sale, including its roadside flail mower and a hitch flail mower. The sale will be handled by Absolute Auctions.

 

• A resolution authorizing the reconstruction of and construction of additions to department’s Public Works Garage, at an estimated cost of $1,969,995. The resolution also authorized the town to obtain bond funding, subject to a voter referendum, to pay most of the cost. The proposed bonding amount was $1.9 million. The town would pay the remaining amount and would meanwhile seek funding from the state and county for the project as well.

 

Key points include:

 

• In Section 1, language was added to read: “Applicants for construction on properties to which this section applies shall demonstrate to the reviewing board or Town Engineer and the Town Code Enforcement Officer that no proposed building or structure (inclusive of chimneys, vents or other fixtures attached to the structure) that is subject to this section shall extend above the highest elevation of the Marlborough Ridgeline, as viewed from the east as determined by the Town Engineer and the Town Code Enforcement Officer.”

 

• In Section 1 (b): There shall be no disturbance of the tree line area above the highest points of the structure and the highest point of the Ridgeline.

 

• In Section 1 (c), language was also added requiring a survey of the lot’s topography within 200 feet of the of the proposed building areas and showing elevations with two-foot intervals. 

 

• Other proposed language forbids the use of “bright or fluorescent-colored materials or highly reflective shiny metal or similar materials,” specifying the use of brown, black, gray, beige, and green tones. The law also calls on lighting not to be excessive and dark-sky compliant, ruling bright LED lighting.