SOUTH HERO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 2017
Members Present: D. Patterson (Chair); D. Roy; S. Gregg; B. Kerr; R. Henry
Public Present: Ross Brown; Jim Brightwell; Tim Maxham; Sherry Corbin; Martha Taylor-Varney, ZA
7:00PM — D. Patterson called the meeting to order.
Changes to the Agenda
There were none.
The Commission requested a copy of the current Planning Commission Rules of Procedure for review at the next meeting.
Continue Review: Article 8 — Administration and Enforcement
In Section 802.B (Alternates), the Commission changed the draft definition to that used in the DRB’s Rules of Procedure. The list of duties of the Development Review Board in Section 802.D are expanded in the draft to include the previous review responsibilities of the Planning Commission (subdivisions, site plans) and the Zoning Board of Adjustment (conditional use, variance, appeals, etc.), now consolidated under the DRB.Â The Commission also added “requests for waiver” to the list.
In Section 803.B (Planning Commission — Duties), even though site plan and subdivision review responsibilities no longer exist, the list of duties has greatly expanded to include capacity studies, recommending capital budgets and plans, comprehensive planning, and recommendations to the Selectboard regarding building, plumbing, fire, electrical, and housing codes.
Under Section 804 (Zoning Permit Issuance and Public Notice) there was discussion on whether the reconstruction of a residence previously destroyed in a fire needs to have a new building permit issued. The ZA’s procedure has been to issue a building permit but require no fee (except for an additional fee if the new footprint has been enlarged) so the parcel file and Town Land Records will reflect the structure as it currently exists. Sherry Corbin said a new permit should not be required because it does not say so in the Regulations. Also, in the case where a permit is issued for a parcel on a private right-of-way, the ZA has begun to issue 2 permit placards â€“ one to be posted at the closest public ROW and a second to be posted on the related parcel itself. This has been reflected in 804.C.2.
The Commission members were confused about requirements under 804.F (Certificate of Occupancy) related to HUD requirements for mobile or manufactured homes — if there are no local building codes for stick-built homes, why should the Town require federal certification for mobile homes? An additional question: what is the definition of a ‘manufactured home’?
Under Sec. 805 (Public Hearings and Notice Requirements for DRB Applications), there was considerable discussion on what defines an Interested Person. How is an interested person identified at a hearing — does the DRB need to certify a person as an interested person before they can speak at a hearing? What about a situation where one person is acting as a spokesperson for a group? Does a member of that group who did not speak at the hearing still have the right to appeal? The provided language and definitions in the draft were very awkward and confusing. It was decided that this section would be sent back to NRPC for a re-write. In Section 806 (Decisions), the Commission questioned whether 5 years was the correct period of time within which a zoning permit related to a DRB approval must be obtained. Should it instead be 2 years, the same as an abandonment? This will be also be sent to NRPC for clarification.
Under Section 808 (Violations and Enforcement) it was decided that the Zoning Administrator provide a form for written complaints that must be filled out and signed before the ZA will act upon it. Jim Brightwell provided a re-write of 808.D (Complaints) that clarified the procedure.
The Commission will continue the review on December 6, 2017 with Article 10 (Definitions), and re-visit Section 706 (Marinas and Yacht Clubs) and Section 703 (Fences). Also included in the discussion will be a draft of a Town sign ordinance by Sandy Gregg.
There was additional discussion about the adoption procedures for the document (whether it will be voted on by the Selectboard, or if it will go to a town vote). The Commission also feels it is important to meet with the Selectboard after the current review is completed to discuss whether to keep driveway standards and fire department access approvals in the document. Moving forward, the Commission needs to put together a comprehensive list of those sections of the draft that need further review. This can be planned as part of the December 20th PC meeting. Sherry reminded the Commission that Table 2.1 still needs some work, and that the regulations be clear on which ones relate to residential development and which to commercial development.
Martha will contact NRPC re:
- The definition of ‘abandonment.’ Is this only for a ‘use’ or does it apply also to structures that have been destroyed, torn-down, or uninhabited?
- Is the definition of ‘abandonment’ from the Act?
- Are the requirements for RBES certification or HUD certification under ‘Certificate of Occupancy’ from the Act? Where did this language originate?
- Is the language under Section 805.C (Interested Persons) from the Act. Where did this originate?
- Gregg moved to approve the minutes from November 1, 2017; B. Kerr second. All in favor.
There was none.
There was none.
Martha had received a draft of the Town of Milton Vermont 2018 Comprehensive Plan that is required to be sent to all abutting towns. It is available for review in the Zoning office.
9:17PM â€“ D. Roy moved to adjourn; S. Gregg second. All in favor.
Martha Taylor-Varney, ZA
Signed: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________
For the Planning Commission
These minutes are unofficial until approved at the next regularly-scheduled meeting. All motions were unanimous unless otherwise indicated.