Marshfield Planning Commission 2006

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

January 12, 2006

Committee Members –Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present

Rich Baker was absent

Town Residents and Guests; none

The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by chair Mike Fritz, with a quorum present.

Mike reported that the Selectboard returned the proposed Town Plan with another amendment to the section which addresses non-conforming uses. Mike talked about how the revision came about, and asked around the table for comments, all support the revised language which will read:

Page 48 of the Town Plan – Issue specific strategy – Allow for continue use of houses that are non-conforming uses – bullet b – The planning commission will develop new regulations for non-conforming uses, structures, and lots as specified by VSA section 4412(7).

Mike asked all interested members to attend the January 17^th meeting of the Selectboard for the final hearing on the proposed Town Plan. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. and consideration of the plan is the first agenda item.

Annual officer election:

Mike restated his interest in becoming more involved with planning and regulation development, and a lesser interest in the administrative work of the planning commission. He will not seek another term as chair.

Mike nominated Wayne to become Chair of the committee, seconded by Jean. After discussion among the members and a commitment from Mike to provide support during the transition period, Wayne was elected to the position of chair.

Wayne talked briefly about the role of the chair, and his commitment to follow past committee practices of mutual respect, and a deliberative approach to planning and regulation development. He assumed the chair at this point in the meeting.

Wayne will talk with the Town Clerk about locating a qualified person to record meeting minutes. He will also confer with Tom Daley (DRB secretary) to determine if the DRB has an interest in outsourcing the secretarial duties.

Wayne will contact the DRB to arrange for a joint meeting (time and place to be determined).

Zoning Administrator report:

Bob meet with the DRB on January 5^th to address a septic system problem at a residence on Hollister Hill, action was tabled until February 6^th – owners are out of town.

Christ the Covenant Church update – the church principals have not met the legal requirement to provide notice at the property site of their plan to appeal the denial of the permit application. Bob talked about a letter from our legal counsel regarding the posting requirement, and the DRB is considering how to proceed on this issue.

There is a difference of opinion on what constitutes the front of this proposed building. Bob attempted to resolve the question using a State of Vermont Environmental Court ruling (Docket No 166-8-00 Vtcc (Appeal of Maplewood Inc) In the case the court is asked to rule on three issues, but only one appertains here 1) whether the lot in question has sufficient frontage. The local zoning regulations are not explicit, consequently the court states:

“By referring to the “width” of the lot, the definition of “lot frontage” must intend the measurement to be taken along the face of the building facing the road, regardless of where the entrance of the building is placed. This interpretation is supported by the common meaning of the “front” lot line, meaning the property line at the road or street. Cf., “front” yard minimum set back.”

The definition of front of a building remains open. The DRB scheduled at site visit for January 28^th, Bob will attend.

Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission Meeting –

The focus of the January meeting was the Proposal for Affordable Housing (draft) released by the Governor as presented by Secretary Kevin Dorn. Secretary Dorn talked about the initiative to provide surplus state land to developers, provided the developers agree to construct affordable housing units. He explained the present and future need for housing units to meet the demands of the workforce and how this initiative begins to address that need. There was considerable discussion with nearly all the regional representatives providing feedback on the plan.

Approval of meeting minutes –

The minutes of the meeting held October 13^th were presented. Jean made a motion to accept the minutes as written, seconded by Mike, and SO VOTED.

The minutes of the meeting held November 10^th were presented. After discussion Mike made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Wayne, and SO VOTED.

The minutes of the meeting held December 8^th were presented. Mike made a motion to accept the minutes as written, seconded by Bob, and SO VOTED.

The minutes of the meeting held December 22^nd were presented. Mike made a motion to accept the minutes as written, seconded by Bob, and SO VOTED.

Mike provided a progress report on his research into the issue of non-conforming uses. He distributed his working list of non conforming properties located in the forest and conservation district and flood hazard area, and asked for our assistance to confirm location of these properties. He also talked briefly about other types of non conforming use such as physical – building set-back, property lot size, and structures on slopes in excess of the provisions in the zoning regs. Mike concluded his report with a recommendation that the issue of non-conforming use due to slope be an agenda item for the meeting with the DRB.

Agenda for next meeting:

Zoning administrator report

CVRPC – no meeting held

Conformance of zoning regulations with Act 117

Other business that comes before the commission

Adjourn

There being no further business Jean made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the January 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

January 26, 2006

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present

Town Residents and Guests; none

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Wayne talked about the joint meeting with the members of the Development Review Board. Jon Groveman has tentatively agreed to a joint meeting on February 23^rd. Wayne is responsible for the meeting agenda and will send copies to the DRB and PC members.

The minutes of the January 12^th meeting were distributed and discussed, Mike made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Jean, and SO VOTED.

Mike talked about the Selectboard meeting of January 17^th, with particular note that members of the DRB, and MPC were in attendance and made final comments of support for approval of the Town Plan. The Selectboard voted approval.

Zoning Administrator Report:

No report for this meeting

Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission Report:

No report at this meeting. The next meeting of CVRPC is February 14^th.

Mike talked about his progress with respect to structures tentatively identified as non-conforming use. He is working with the personnel in the Town Clerk office to locate and examine and categorize (by type) the permits issued for each address. He asked for time at the next meeting to provide his findings.

The members talked about the ramifications that will manifest if Planned Unit Developments (PUD), formerly PRDs, are no longer allowed in the Forest and Conservation District. The consensus is a PUD would become a non conforming use. Adding to the list of non-conforming uses is a concern of the Commission, topic to remain open for continued discussion, will be an exploratory agenda item for joint meeting with DRB.

Rich Baker continued the presentation of proposed revisions to bring the Zoning Regulations into conformance with the requirements of Chapter 117. Rich talked alternative approaches to conforming the zoning regulations, and the pros and cons of the alternatives. Items for follow up include:

Section 260 PRD (now PUD): Rich to inquire of other land use planners who are or have dealt with the PRD in the forest district issue

Section 300 Equal Treatment of Housing: Wayne to forward the Berlin Zoning Regulations – specifically the sections which address mobile homes and mobile home parks

Accessory dwelling units - Rich to follow with Town Clerk for a definition or the common practice to determine “habitable space”

The committee set aside the review and will continue with Section 302 at the next meeting.

The members talked about how to clearly and concisely present the mandated Chapter 117 zoning regulation changes to the community. Everyone agrees transparency is an important piece of the communication process. Rich offered to develop, using the approach taken in Barre, a draft abridged version of the zoning regulation changes abridged version of the changes to the zoning regulations.

Agenda for next meeting:

Zoning administrator report Bob 15 minutes

CVRPC – no meeting held

Update on non conformance – Mike 30 minutes

Proposed agenda for joint meeting with DRB Wayne 15 minutes

Conformance of zoning regulations with Act 117 Rich 45 minutes

Other business that comes before the commission

Adjourn

There being no further business Rich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the January 26, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

February 9, 2006

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present

Town Residents and Guests; Dina Bookmyer-Baker

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

The Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission has not met since our previous meeting.

Zoning administrator report:

Christ the Covenant Church update: Bob, members of the DRB, and representatives of the church conducted an on-sight conditional use and septic plan review on January 29^th. On February 7^th the DRB held a hearing on the church representatives appeal of the zoning administrators denial of a building permit. The DRB has 45 days to issue an opinion on the matter – the timeline for the opinion began on Feb 7^th.

Mike provided an update on non-conformance, he has divided the topic based district – forest and conservation, and flood hazard area. Nineteen properties with potential non conforming structures are located in the forest and conservation district. Mike reviewed his findings on each property and received feedback from the commissioners. Mike agreed that further refinement is necessary, however the research is believed to be 90% accurate. Mike expects to report on his findings of structures in the flood hazard area in March.

Rich continued with the presentation on the conforming the zoning regulations with current law to conclusion. The commissioners had a preliminary discussion on how to address the issue of PUD’s in the forest and conservation district, Section 302 – the proper interpretation of “frontage”, and agreed to set aside decisions until after the joint meeting with the DRB.

Bob asked Rich put the sectional references to applicable law back in the zoning regulations as a research aid.

The commission reviewed and approved the proposed agenda (as amended with new topics discussed this evening) for the joint DRB meeting.

There being no further business Jean made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the February 9, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

February 23, 2006 – JOINT MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

Planning Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present

Development Review Board Members – James Arisman, Tom Daley, Jon Groveman, Martin Johnson, and Gary Wilson were present

Town Residents and Guests; Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Laura Johnson

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

The reports of the CVRPC rep and zoning administrator were tabled for the joint meeting.

Wayne distributed the agenda for the meeting (all attendees received and e-copy previously) and talked about the objectives for the meeting – listening to the concerns of the DRB relative to interpretation or gaps in the zoning regulations, and an open exchange of ideas on the other topics on the agenda.

Jon opened the DRB commentary:

Frontage – DRB looking for clarification of the regulation. The history has been the DRB has not denied a permit due to insufficient frontage. The regulation specifies a requirement for a certain amount of frontage on a public road or a permanent 50 foot right of way.

The concern with the frontage regulation as written may lead to a series of “spaghetti lots”, narrow accesses tightly grouped, other express support for this approach as it may lead to the desired end results – residences built further back from the road, and adequate access to land locked property. The open question – what is the intended future direction of development?

Planned Residential Developments (previously issued) – now known as Planned Unit Developments permitted in the forest and conservation district. The Jon expressed reservations over continuing to “carve out a district within the forest and conservation district”.

If PUD’s were no longer permitted in the forest and conservation district then how would the DRB view previously permitted PRD’s? Jon suggested such structures would become non-conforming. Which raised the question of the recently approved PRD issued to the Curriers’ (Pleasant Street) – would the structure(s) they plan to build than become non-conforming? Logically yes, however Jon encouraged the planning commission to continue its research into what opportunities (legal question) might be available to such previously approved PRD’s.

Is it legally possible to forbid all development in the forest and conservation district? Jon talked about the legal issue, suggesting it hasn’t been an issue, however the idea of obtaining the opinion of counsel merits further consideration.

The members of the DRB presented several scenarios in which permitting a PUD in the forest district would be undesirable. The DRB requested the planning commission make every effort to resolve the question this year.

PUD in general – At what level of development (number of homes) does the next proposed home require PUD status review, or does this situation automatically “trip” a PUD and as a result requires a set aside of conserved land. The issue is left to the planning commissioners to work out.

First home residences, built after the approval of zoning and legally (although incorrectly) permitted by a zoning administrator, located in district where such residences are not allowed are considered non-conforming structures under State Law (Chapter 117) – Rich Baker.

The DRB has not been asked to render an opinion on a mobile home park. The planning commissioners suggested regulations be developed and asked for input on requiring a permit for a mobile home park be subject to the same levels of approval required of a PUD, and ramp up conditional use requirements in line with state statute. The topic was considered and the planning commission was encouraged to pursue the question.

Slope issues – The DRB has had to interpret the intent of the regulations which refer to slope and asked the commissioners to consider clarification of the language.

Driveways are an area of concern as the topic relates to slope as well as surface materials, and public safety issues and should be considered as part of reconsider how to address in the zoning regulations – Martin Johnson.

Commercial signage – the topic is adequately covered within existing regulations and is addressed during the site plan review process.

Exterior lighting standards – the regulations would be improved if the issues of wattage, and area coverage were addressed

Spite Lights – (intensive exterior lighting which has a negative effect on neighbors) – suggestion is this would be better addressed by the Selectboard as a town ordinance.

Fences and barriers – DRB supports adding language to the regulations on the topic. Issues to be considered were – set back from lot lines (could be none), direction of attached material, and retaining walls – visual impact as well as consider engineering requirements (when required).

Adding regulations that provide for dimensional waiver (lot size, set back, height, etc.) with restrictions on the extent of mitigation to be allowed – State law provides for flexibility in a dimensional waiver to a point – say 10 to 20% variance off the regulatory requirement (Rich Baker). The group discussed the pros and cons of adding a dimensional waiver section to the zoning regulations without making a recommendation on proceeding.

The conversation shifted to a discussion on the village district and present non-conforming structures and how provisions for dimensional waiver might be applied to the benefit of residents in the district. The issue of reconsidering the regulation of the village district with a shift toward micro-zoning (a street at a time) might be appropriate for the district.

Wayne thanked all present for their participation in the discussion and covering all agenda items.

Wayne asked each member of the DRB for their final thoughts on what other issues the planning commissioners should be addressing.

Tom Daley – Consider, in the near term, regulations that address change in commercial use and the required permitting process for such change.

Gary Wilson – Camps in the forest and conservation district – consideration should be given to dimensional limitations.

Martin Johnson – Distributed a list of concerns and suggestion covering several sections of the zoning regulations (due to the hour – Wayne accepted the list on behalf of the commissioners).

There being no further business Jean made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the February 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting as delivered to the Town Clerk. I have no record of whether they were approved, either with or without changes.

Attest, ________________________________________, Town Clerk

**************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

March 9, 2006

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present

Town Residents and Guests; Dina Bookmyer-Baker

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Zoning administrator report:

Christ the Covenant Church update: The Development Review Board (DRB) approved the permit to build, the sub-division permit, and the conditional use permit. The approval process moves forward to the Act 250 Review

Babic permit declined by the DRB on the basis of the proposed site for the septic system, and excess slope of the driveway.

A potential buyer for the Groton Forest Camp Ground has informally said to the zoning administrator that the property would only be of interest if it’s use as a camp ground can be greatly expanded.

Bob suggested a joint meeting (similar to those held annually with the DRB) with the Select Board might prove beneficial. Wayne to follow up later in year and determine interest.

CVRPC representative report:

Wayne talked about Dick Agne’s (Executive Director of Central Vermont Economic Development Commission) report on the history of CVEDC’s success at bringing new businesses into our region.

Dina Bookmyer-Baker expressed interest in the open seat on the Planning Commission. Dina was encouraged to submit a letter of interest to the Select Board.

Mike provided an update on non-conformance; all non-conforming uses that can be determined from a “desk” examination have been identified. There are a total of 44 identified non conforming uses in the Flood Hazard and Forest and Conservation Districts. He talked about each of the identified non conforming uses located in the Flood Hazard Area. He also noted that there is the potential to increase or decrease the number of non-conforming uses in the flood hazard area depending upon the MPC proposal to revise the district boundary.

Agenda for next meeting: Continue the evaluation of non-conforming uses, and conclude conforming the zoning by-laws with the requirements of Chapter 117.

There being no further business Jean made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the March 9, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

There was no meeting on March 23, 2006 due to a lack of quorum.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

April 13, 2006

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light were present.

Mike Fritz, and Jean Matthew were absent

Guests: None

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Zoning administrator report:

Cloud Alliance (a local internet service provider) is expanding in Marshfield and has an interest in erecting antennas on advantageous existing tall structures – barns, silos etc. The administrator contacted the league of cities and towns for guidance. The league referred to their bulletin #5 (11/04) which states height can not be regulated provided the antenna is placed on a complying structure – the matter has been referred to the Development Review Board (DRB).

Lucky Day Enterprises is looking to add a building on their property along the Winooski River near the Plainfield town line. A state representative from the Department of Home Land Security contacted Bob and reported the Berde’s are altering the flood way of the Winooski River by pushing dirt into the river to make way for the proposed building. Bob subsequently contacted the state’s National Flood Insurance Coordinator, Margaret Torizzo, who advised Bob to contact the Berde’s and direct them to mitigate the changes they’ve made.

Ms. Torizzo asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in her attending a future meeting to discuss the Flood Hazard Area by-laws.

The DRB instructed Bob to work with a landowner to modify a proposed septic system, which was designed in 1998, because a portion of the system is on a slope of more than 15 degrees.

CVRPC representative:

Jack Hoffman, a Marshfield resident, spoke about plans at the State level to extend broadband internet coverage through out Vermont. The regional commissioners were widely supportive of the plan and endorsed the proposal.

The regional committee reviewed and approved the update to the Marshfield Town Plan. A formal letter of notification will be sent to the Town Clerk.

Wayne talked about a letter received from Jenny Neilson Warshow requesting the Select Board to enact interim zoning to clarify section 302 (road frontage requirement) if the zoning by-laws. The planning commission tabled further consideration pending a response from the Select Board.

Wayne asked all members to review the most recent draft on the revised zoning by-laws and be prepared to make their final comments at the next meeting. Rich will prepare one more draft for all to consider at the second meeting in May.

Wayne will confer with the Town Clerk regarding tasks and timelines required to move a proposed change to the zoning by-laws through the regulatory requirements and before the voters. The information will be emailed to all prior to the next meeting.

Agenda item for next meeting:

Review of 2006 work plan.

There being no further business Rich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 13, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Marshfield Planning Commission (MPC)

Meeting Minutes

Location: Office of the Town Clerk, Marshfield, Vermont

April 27, 2006

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light AND Jean Matthews were present.

Mike Fritz was absent

Guests: Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Jenny Neilson Warshow

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Jenny Neilson Warshow talked about her partition for interim zoning to clarify section 302 (road frontage), because she believes the section is ambiguous. She explained that when she was a planning commission member this section was interpreted to mean – land locked parcels that existed at the time the zoning by-laws were first adopted. Bob talked about his understanding of the Development Review Board interpretation which is different from that posed by Ms. Warshow, the section is being applied to any land that lacks frontage. The commissioners exchanged their view of the section, and thanked Ms. Warshow for taking the time to express her concerns and point of view. Ms. Warshow left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

Zoning administrator report:

Bob talked about a meeting he recently had with representatives of Lucky Day Enterprises and Margaret Torizzo, NFIP coordinator. He explained that Ms. Torizzo has found Lucky Day Enterprises to be in violation of National Flood Insurance Program regulations and the Marshfield zoning by-laws. Ms. Torizzo, in a follow up letter dated April 24, instructed Bob to meet again with the Lucky Day representatives and give them a 30 day written notice to remedy the violation. Bob wrote that letter May 2^nd and delivered it to Mr. Berde. Bob will schedule a June 2^nd follow up inspection of the property, and report his findings to Ms. Torizzo.

CVRPC representative:

The CVRPC has not met since our previous meeting.

Rich walked the committee members through the remainder of the proposed changes to the zoning by-laws. The committee reviewed the proposed document in it’s entity, and asked Rich to make agreed to changes in preparation for a final review and approval vote at an MPC meeting in May. Rich will also make an abstract report of changes to the by-laws as required by law, as well as the legal notice of hearing in time for us to consider at a May MPC meeting.

Wayne will be on vacation the second meeting in May.

There being no further business Rich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne Kowalski

MPC Chair and acting secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

Attest, _________________________________, Town Clerk

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members –Bob Light, Rich Baker, and Mike Fritz. The meeting was called to order at 7:15pm, with a quorum present.

It was noted that the Marshfield Town Plan was approved by the Central Regional Planning Commission. Dina Baker’s application to the MPC was not accepted.

1) Zoning violations – Bob talked about 5 recent zoning violations. Helen Oatley on Groton Rd. had placed a new trailer slightly into the Forest District. Bob requested the trailer be moved so that it was completely in the Ag District. As part of the permit, the applicant also agreed to abandon their existing trailer that was much farther into the Forest District. Earl Rogers placed a concrete slab too close to his property line violating setback requirements. The Tait property has a structure within 30’ of the property line violating setback requirements and Bob asked that it be moved within 30 days. Lucky Day is still working on issues they created in the floodplain. Tim Booth added decks to multiple trailers without permits and will now be applying for the proper permits.

2) Floodplain regulations – Bob and Rich talked about Margaret Tereso and a new set of model regulations for Floodplain districts in Vermont. All three of us agreed to ask Wayne to invite Margaret to a meeting with the MPC to hear from her and understand more about these model regulations. After such a meeting then the MPC could re-look at the priority of our floodplain regulation work.

3) Slope related to driveways – We talked about the recent zoning rulings - the DRB ruling on the Babocks that their driveway was too steep for emergency vehicles. We looked at our land development definitions and the new state definitions to understand if driveways needed zoning permits.

Rich received feedback on his Chapter 117 work. We walked through all the suggested changes that Mike had for the document.

We talked about the recent DRB hearing on the Internet broadband application. There is a new set of model regulations available for these types of Internet providers that we all agreed we should look at. More importantly we need to continue to track any changes that might be necessary to our Telecommunication regulations related to big towers for cellular service.

Mike handed out discussion notes for the non-conformance issue at the end of the meeting and the group agreed to work on it at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10pm.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the May 25, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members –Bob Light, Rich Baker, and Mike Fritz. The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm, with a quorum present.

4) Major subdivision – The Evergreen Timber Company had an informational meeting with the DRB for an 8-lot major subdivision along Laird Pond Road. Mike sat in as a temporary member of the DRB and will continue through the entire process for this major subdivision. When Evergreen called Bob and asked about the fee for this subdivision which is $100, they were stunned that it was so low. Bob agreed and thought we should recommend that we raise our fees for major subdivisions to the Selectboard. Rich said that he would do some research into fees charged by other towns for similar projects. After that we can make our recommendation to the Selectboard.

Rich talked about the changes he made to the Chapter 117 work. Mike said that he would review the changes before the next meeting. Rich will come with all the changes in final form for the next meeting, including the report, the zoning regulations, and the hearing warning. We will be looking forward to calling a vote at the next meeting. If approved then Wayne could work with Bobbi on the hearing notice on 6/23, and we could target our 7/13 meeting for the hearing.

1) Abandonment – Rich wanted to see this broken out between residential uses and all other uses. For residential use we talked about abandonment after 3 years and for all others we talked about 1 year. The test of abandonment for residential would be that it is no longer being maintained as a habitable structure. One source of this information are the town assessment records. The test of abandonment for other uses is that it is no longer being used for that use/purpose.

3) Expansion – Again we broke out the discussion between residential uses and all other uses. For residential uses we talked about simply allowing it, or putting a 50% size restriction on it. The initial size would be set if/when new zoning regulations get approved. The size could be increased multiple times by multiple owners as long as the total size didn’t exceed 50% of the initial size. For commercial we talked about allowing it with DRB approval, but we didn’t get into any criteria for this review.

4) Relocation – We talked about allowing it with DRB approval when the new use is less non-conforming than the old use. Some criteria for this could be – that it is a safer building site in the Flood district, that the building site is closer to the road in the Forest district, and that there is no increased visual impact.

5) Rebuild – Bob wanted to see this changed so that after a fire, the owner did not need to do a DRB review.

6) Other – Rich talked about adding some language to allow a change to a lesser non-conforming use. He will find appropriate language from other regulations.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the June 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, and Bob Light were present.

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Wayne introduced Anne Reed as a member of the newly formed Marshfield Conservation Commission (MCC) who had asked to speak about their tentative work plan and seek feedback from the planners.

Anne identified the members and talked about start up activities of the MCC. She explained that it is the desire of the MCC to have an active relationship with the planning commission and she will be the liaison from the MCC. Anne talked about MCC concerns regarding the mapping of wetlands (particularly class 3 wetlands), and the impact of invasive species in Marshfield. She pointed out the State has no current regulations regarding class 1,2, or 3 wetlands, but the legislature is considering an initiative to regulate wetlands in class 3. Anne was encouraged to look into the possibility of grant funds to assist with the mapping project. The members also suggested the MCC might consider as part of it’s role the education of residents regarding conservation of our natural resources.

The committee reviewed the final draft of the proposed revisions to the zoning by-laws. Mike made a motion to accept the proposed revisions to the Marshfield Zoning by-laws, and recommend approval to the Select Board, subject to the result of a public hearing on the proposal, seconded by Bob, and SO VOTED.

Rich will email the proposed by-laws, the abridged report on the proposed changes, and warning of public hearing to Wayne. Wayne will coordinate with Bobbie (Town Clerk) on the distribution of the material and warning of the public hearing as required by law. The tentative date for the public hearing will be July 27, 2006.

The members continued the discussion of non conforming use. We addressed the question of what determines abandonment of a structure. The consensus is when the listers set the value of a structure at or near $0.00, the structure is abandoned. Mike will follow with the listers regarding their approach to such valuations.

The members expressed concern regarding the rights, or loss of rights, of property owners as a result of future changes to the zoning by-laws. The committee’s objective on this question is to propose a change to the by-laws which will assure equity (the rights of a property owner affected by a change in the zoning by-laws should be no less than the rights of another property owner not so affected).

The members informally discussed property owner rights with respect to expanding, rebuilding, or relocating a structure deemed to be a non conforming use without reaching consensus.

Rich talked about applying for one or more planning grants, and he noted the list of potential grants should be available from the regional planning office in the near future. A future agenda item.

There being no further business Rich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the June 22, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present.

The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

O’Rourke property - The DRB recently ruled that a maintained road (U.S. Route 2 in this case) that bisects a property (O’Rourke) does not constitute a subdivision of the property. Bob has a formal opinion of Attorney Gillies to the contrary. The issue may create a 2007 work item. Wayne will research prior minutes of the planning commission and determine if the issue was raised and resolved previously.

Evergreen LLC (Sub-division proposal on Laird Pond Road) – The proposed sub-division plans indicate that lots 4 & 5 can not support septic, and lot 6 has sufficient capacity for these three lots. Bob is concerned that such a use is not in line with the intent of Section 380 of the zoning by-laws and will seek counsel for clarification.

Margaret Torizzo will be at the meeting on 8/24 making a presentation on FEMA’s approach to determining flood way and hazard area, and comment on the current Marshfield Flood Zone regulations. Margaret will also provide us a list of Marshfield property owners who obtain flood insurance through the national program. The commissioners will seek her counsel on allowing development in this zone.

The commissioners made final preparation for the public hearing July 27, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. The topic is - proposed changes to the zoning by-laws – specifically – amendments required to conform with Vermont Chapter 117.

Wayne to contact the chair of the Selectboard for the purpose of scheduling a joint meeting to listen to Selectboard member concerns and comments on zoning and planning issues.

Rich talked about the planning grant application, and how an award of a planning grant can assist the commission with answering such questions as – what is the build out capacity of the Town and village (under current regulations and a series of “what if” regulatory changes), and begin to provide the factual context of planning tasks contained in the Town Plan.

Anne Reed talked about the recently formed Conservation Commission, and the commissions initial work will focus upon education (for it’s members and members of the community) and than community outreach. The CC has not set timelines to accomplish these tasks at this juncture.

There being no further business to meeting ended at 9:22 p.m. on a motion by Jean

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the July 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present.

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

The public hearing to consider voter input on the proposed changes to the Marshfield Zoning By-laws – Amend by-laws to meet the requirements of State law Chapter 117 began at 7:12 p.m.

Wayne talked briefly about the proposed revisions to the zoning by-laws, and that the changes were mandated by the State. The planning commission, with assistance from the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, developed the document that is the focus of this hearing.

Ms. Johnson presented a letter from Martin Johnson, asking the commission to consider removing the provision to allow Private Unit Developments from the forest and conservation district. Wayne said that the commission, with support from the Selectboard and a recommendation of the Development Review Board, was charged with the task to update the by-laws to comply with State law, and not introduce other changes at this time.

Wayne thanked the voters for their input on the proposed changes to the zoning by-laws and the hearing ended at 7:25 p.m.

The commissioners considered the oral and written input from the public on the proposed changes to the zoning by-laws, concluding the testimony (written and oral) does not have a significant impact on the regulations as proposed. Rich made a motion to forward to the Marshfield Selectboard the proposed amendments to the zoning by-laws (as drafted) for their consideration and public hearing, seconded by Mike, and SO VOTED.

Wayne will email the package to the Town clerk in the morning, including the vote of the planning commission to forward the proposed change to the Selectboard.

The planning commissioners received a letter from Jenny N. Warshow concerning a topic she addressed to the commission earlier in the year – frontage requirements for developing a lot. Ms. Warshow is seeking clarification of Section 302 - Required frontage on, or access to, public roads. The commissioners discussed the merits of the request, noting the Town Plan does not call into question the issue Ms. Warshow raises. The commission decided to add the issue to the work plan and determine it’s priority among all other issues on the work plan for 2007.

Evergreen LLC (Sub-division proposal on Laird Pond Road) – an application for an 8 lot (consisting of 120 acres) subdivision has been filed with the Town. Homes that might be built will be within the rural residential district – a permitted use. It appears the adjourning property owners will contest the application.

The commission will not hold it’s regularly scheduled meeting August 14 (summer vacation)

There being no further business to meeting ended at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Jean

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the July 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Jean Matthew, and Bob Light were present.

2. Zoning Administrator update and other updates from PC members Bob said that in his 10+ years as ZA, this is the least active summer

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the August 24, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members –Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present. Rich Baker was absent.

The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Bob talked about the recent Selectboard meeting, and member comments about the decision by the commission to include consideration of Section 302 – Frontage in the work plan for 2007.

· Language to clarify that a land parcel is sub divided when a State or Town maintained road bisects the parcel.

· What constitutes “adequate access” – specifically emergency vehicles - to homes on a parcel of land (example Pike Road)

· Reconsider the general standards for review under Section 255 Planned Unit Developments – clarify the language or define the word in the follow sentence

o General Standard 1. The PUD is consistent with the goals of the Town Plan (emphasis added).

The minutes of the following meetings were reviewed and approved as written or modestly amended:

Rich distributed copies of an article explaining the zoning by-laws revision that the voters will consider in November. The article will appear in the October issue of Field Notes.

Mike is writing a cover letter to the Selectboard and also providing the Board with a copy of his research on non-conformance.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members –Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, Bob Light, and Jean Matthew were present. Rich Baker was absent.

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Wayne introduced the guest speaker Margaret Torizzo – State of Vermont National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator.

Ms. Torizzo explained her role, and offered the help of her department as we continue to work on revisions to the flood plane (hazard) zoning by-laws.

FEMA funds one person in each State to administer the NFIP. Ms. Torizzo has an additional two person staff. She walked the commission through the FEMA process to identify floodways, and the outlying flood hazard area. She explained that FEMA is in the process of digitizing the flood maps, and copies should be available before July 2007. Towns will have the opportunity to obtain the digital maps and make comments to FEMA before the maps are adopted.

Ms Torizzo talk about the types of losses Vermont has experienced due to flooding – 75% of losses are the result of erosion, the remaining 25% are caused by inundation. Presently FEMA maps only consider inundation, however the State ( Department of Forest and Parks) is in the process or creating an erosion map as an overlay to the FEMA map. Ms. Torizzo’s office has on hand Digital Flood Insurance Maps (DFIRM) for the village and town, and will provide e-copies of each.

Ms. Torizzo explained the process that towns must follow when the FEMA flood maps are being adopted. Property owners are to notified of the change in the maps, and citizens with property (structures) in within the identified flood hazard area must purchase NFIP insurance before the revised maps are adopted.

We talked about development in the floodway and flood hazard area. Development is defined as – any change to land which includes excavation, adding fill, grading, and includes structures of all types.

The commission briefly discussed the need to obtain a building permit for structures within the flood hazard area. Bob explained that permits are not required for internal modification to a structure unless the completed work will result in increasing the market value of the property by more than 50%. Requests for external modification to a structure in the flood hazard area require approval by the DRB. The commissioners will consider adding a look back period for determining increase in market value, realizing such language would place an additional burden on the zoning administrator.

The commissioners discussed the merits of allowing new development in the flood hazard area. Ms. Torizzo expressed support for the zoning by-laws as they exist – to deny this opportunity. She commented that development might be appropriate in some areas within the flood hazard area because the planned location for the development is at an elevation that would caused the proposed structure to be above the height of the surrounding flood hazard area. She added the State has a process to make such determinations, and would issue an elevation certificate when warranted. She suggested the commission consider making an elevation certificate a part of the process for new development in the flood hazard area.

The commissioners thanked Ms. Torizzo for the informative presentation and her helpful comments.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, and Jean Matthew were present. Bob Light was absent.

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

The public hearing to consider voter input on the proposed changes to the Marshfield Zoning By-laws – Section 280 Non-conforming use and Section 281 Non-conforming structures began at 7:06 p.m.

Mike talked briefly about the proposed revision of the zoning by-laws, and reviewed the results of his desk research on the topics of non conforming uses and structures. The proposed changes clarify and, in specific circumstances, and with DRB approval, expand the rights of property owners. The proposed changes are in line with the Town Plan.

Ms. Johnson asked for clarification of Section 280 subsection 2 – changes from non-conforming to conforming uses, and how the DRB’s over site and approval process will occur. The commissioners used several hypothetical and fact based examples to address Ms. Johnson’s concerns. She commended the commission for it’s work. Ms. Johnson suggested the commission consider sending the research report, and examples presented this evening to the Selectboard.

Wayne thanked Ms. Johnson for her input on the proposed changes to the zoning by-laws and the hearing ended at 7:45 p.m.

The commissioners considered the input from the public on the proposed changes to section 280 and the newly proposed section 281, deciding the testimony does not have a significant impact on the regulations as proposed. Mike made a motion to forward to the Marshfield Selectboard the proposed amendments to the zoning by-laws (as drafted) for their consideration and public hearing, seconded by Jean, and SO VOTED.

Wayne will email the package to the Town clerk in the morning, including the vote of the planning commission to forward the proposed change to the Selectboard.

Jean talked about her progress on drafting revisions to the Flood Hazard area by-laws. The draft was given to Ms. Torizzo for review and comment. The commission agreed to table further consideration of these by-laws until Jean received Ms. Torizzo’s critique.

The commission discussed the 2007 work plan, and began prioritize tasks for next year. To be continued.

Rich is working on a draft proposal for the use of the planning grant. The proposal will be a discussion item at the next meeting.

The commissioners decided to meet again on December 14^th to give members working on various initiatives an unencumbered calendar – allowing all to complete work in process before year end.

There being no further business to meeting ended at 8:30 p.m. on a motion by Jean

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the October 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members – Rich Baker, Mike Fritz, Wayne Kowalski, and Bob Light, were present. Jean Matthew was absent.

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by chair Wayne Kowalski, with a quorum present.

Mike commented upon his participation on the DRB during the hearing on Evergreen LLC permit process. He talked about how the DRB looks to the Town Plan for guidance when considering and deciding upon sub-division applications, suggesting some modification to this approach might be appropriate, resulting a change of the zoning by-laws. He also noted that several property owners along Laird Pond Road opposed the sub-division and attempted to use the results of the “Survey of Residents” – which was included in the Town Plan as an informational piece – to deny the sub division. His suggestion is to continue to survey residents, but not include the survey results in the final version of the Town Plan.

Bob talked about the Martin Bridge restoration project. The resetting of the bridge requires a permit but one has yet to be filed. He expects once the permit is filled, Ms. Torizzo, the State FEMA representative, will be very involved with the permitting of this project. He expects there will be some challenges to complete the project as envisioned – proposals for a pavilion building, graded paths, and assembled walkways will all be evaluated with respect to the impact each will have on the flood hazard area – and floodway.

Bob commented that the permitting of septic systems will become the task of the State as of July 1, 2007.

Wayne talked about a call he received from Richard Gauge – expressing his concern about Ms. Warshow’s proposal to make substantial revisions to Section 302 – Frontage - in the zoning by-laws. Wayne explained that the proposal is being considered in the context of the 2007 work plan of the commission. If the commission were to recommend any changes to this or any section of the zoning by-laws such recommendation are required to conform with the Town Plan, and require approval of the voters.

The application submitted by the Town to the Regional Planning Commission has been approved. The award is $15,000 and will be used to gather facts using GIS data for the benefit of future planning and address several tasks delegated to the commission in the Town Plan.

Wayne reported on the CVRPC meeting of December 12. The topic was the legislature’s progress on updating wet land regulations. Ed Larson – Montpelier’s representative – is strongly opposed to the regulation in their present form, he commented that the proposed regs distributed to members prior to the meeting are out-of-date. His observation is there won’t be any substantial progress on the proposal during the present legislative session.

CVRPC was asked to evaluate the flood hazard regulations of each member town. Wayne gave Jean the results of that evaluation.

Wayne talked about the cost of planning commission operations for 2006, and the 2007 budget. The commissioners reviewed the financial reports provided by the town clerk, discussed the 2007 budget, and approved changes to the budget that Wayne will present to the Selectboard in January.

The commission discussed how to organize a meeting schedule for 2007. We agreed that the major agenda item for the first meeting of the month will be “planning”, while the second meeting will focus on the work plan and zoning issues.

Wayne will update the work plan – now referred to as the tracking report – adding all initiatives assigned to the commission in the Town Plan and email the document to the members.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the December 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************