There was no Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2008.

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Bob Light, and Anne Reed, were present. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present.

At 7:07 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

1. Election of Chair
   Nancy nominated Rich Baker to serve as the new Chair. Bob seconded the nomination. Rich mentioned he rarely will be able to attend Select Board meetings due to a conflict with his evening work schedule and that the Vice-Chair or other members will need to attend an occasional Select Board meetings. Rich nomination Nancy to serve as Vice Chair. Both nominations passed unanimously.

2. Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CVRPC) Representative
   Rich asked Jean if she was interested in serving as the new CVRPC representative. She said she was interested. Rich will send an email to the Selectboard to say that the Planning Commission supports appointing Jean as the new CVRPC representative.

3. Discussion of Select Board meeting Regarding Build-Out Analysis
   Rich reported on the build-out discussion with the Select Board. Rich, Jean, and Anne attended. Rich provided about a 40-minute presentation of the purpose, process, and goals of the build-out analysis. The Select Board members stated that the presentation was helpful in better understanding the analysis.

4. Discussion of Select Board Hearing on Updated Flood Hazard District Regulations and Riparian Buffer Requirements
   Rich reported on the outcome of the Select Board hearing. John Warsaw was concerned about the fluvial erosion review section of the proposed Flood Hazard District ordinance and thought it was too subjective. The Select Board voted to not place the new flood regulations on the March ballot, to make some further revisions, and to place it on the November ballot. Rich talked to the state mapping coordinator who said that they were re-doing the maps for Washington County. The floodplain coordinator said that due to the remapping, the deadline to bring the floodplain regulations into compliance will not be until late in the year.
   
   John Warsaw was concerned about the ability to enforce the proposed 25-foot no-cut buffer along watercourse in the proposed Riparian Buffer ordinance. The Select Board voted to not place the new riparian buffer regulations on the March ballot, to make some further revisions, and to place in on the November ballot.
   
   Rich will contact the Select Board to coordinate amendments to the two proposed ordinances.

5. Zoning Administrator Report
   Bob discussed problems that have occurred in Plainfield regarding restrictions that have been added that do not allow new development on existing lots without any road frontage and that do not allow new lots without road frontage. Bob was concerned that similar restrictions, which have been proposed by some individuals, would create similar problems in Marshfield.

6. Approval of Minutes for December 13, 2008
   Nancy made the motion, Anne seconded, minutes passed without changes.

7. Review of 2007 Plans
   The Board reviewed the tracking report developed last year by Wayne Kowalski. The Commission reviewed the task list, selected those tasks to be worked on over the next year, and then group the tasks into categories. The following is a breakdown of tasks by category:

Build-Out Analysis

§         Review road frontage requirements

§         Review Rural Residential zone minimum lot sizes

§         Review PUD requirements in Forest and Conservation zone

§         Consider implications of regulations for strip development

§         Review Village existing density and setbacks versus current regulations

§         Review possible expansion of the Village zone

§         Review viewscape protection

§         Review existing natural resources

§         Review PRD and other regulations to encourage concentrated development

Subdivision Ordinance Update

§         Review issue of parcels divided by roads

§         Consider streamlining approval process

§         Review for adherence to Chapter 117

§         Review requiring shared curb cuts

Technical Corrections/Clarifications

§         Definition of front of building

§         Define when a commercial change of use requires a new approval

§         Correct zoning district line at end of Lyford Rd

Other

§         Review height for church steeple

§         Work with Selectboard on final floodplain edits

§         Work with Selectboard on final riparian buffer edits

§         Revise telecommunication ordinance

§         Define how to handle tarp/temporary structures

§         Consider well-head protection regulations

§         Consider obtaining Village Designation

8. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule
   Rich suggested that one meeting each month be devoted to build-out analysis and the other meeting be devoted to ordinance updates and other items.
   Next meeting February 14 —Dan Currier from CVRPC will continue with build-out analysis.
   February 28 — agenda to be determined

9. Other
   The Planning Commission all agreed that Wayne Kowalski, the former Planning Commission Chair who recently resigned from the Commission, did an excellent job as Chair and should be commended for his dedicated service.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the January 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart and Jean Matthew were present. Dan Currier from Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, Rich Phillips, and Brett Engstrom were also present.

At 7:00 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

 

10. Build-Out Analysis Presentation and Discussion
    Dan Currier presented ten build-outs based upon past discussions. Five scenarios were considered for the build-outs. Each scenario was analyzed with and without weighted constraints. Weighted constraints include existing natural restrictions (i.e. steep slopes, flood zones, wetlands etc), built lands, and conserved lands.  A map was shown for each build out along with a table showing existing structures, grandfathered lots, developable structures by zoning district. There are currently approximately 617 existing residential structures in town. The following is a summary of the results for the weighted build-outs (details of the build-out results can be obtained from the Planning Commission):

·        Build-out current zoning except requiring road frontage for all new lots created: 605 new potential structures

·        Build-out with current zoning except not allowing new residential structures in forest and conservation District,  increasing Rural Residential lots to 5 acre minimum, and requiring road frontage for all new lots created: 422 new potential structures

·        Build-out with current zoning except with no road frontage requirements: 3424 new potential structures

·        Build-out with current zoning except requiring road frontage for lots along streets and not requiring road frontage for lots behind lots with access via a right-of-way (which is current zoning as been applied to recent development)  3713 new potential structures

Dan will be sending the build-out GIS layers to Rich to allow him to add this to the existing town GIS information in order for the Planning Commission to more closely analyze the maps. Dan will also be developing a GIS layer of all areas visible from all state roads in order to allow the Planning Commission to analyze the visual affects of development under each of the build-outs.

In March and April, the Planning Commission will:

·        Further analyze the build-out maps in order to consider the spatial relationship of development

·        Consider the impact of each scenario by zoning district

·        Recommend further build-out scenarios for Dan to develop

The existing $15,000 Municipal Planning grant (which required no matching town funds) must be spent by May 8^th or else the funds are forfeited. The current grant has covered the cost of updating the parcel maps with ten years of subdivisions, purchasing GIS viewing software for town staff and the Planning Commission, and completing the build-outs.  Dan will send an amended contract for approval by the Select Board to cover the proposed final work. An additional $____ in Municipal Planning Grant funds has been awarded for additional build-outs and GIS development in the FY 08-09.

11. Approval of Minutes for January 24, 2008
    Nancy made the motion, minutes passed without changes.

12. Zoning Administrator Report
    Bob Light was absent and, therefore, there was no report.

13. CVRPC Report
    No CVRPC representative has been appointed by the Select Board. Dan Currier reported that the regional land use plan was reviewed at the last CVRPC meeting.

14. Review of Environmental Court Decision Regarding Kowalski PRD
    Rich Baker reported that the Environmental Court decision upheld the DRB decision to not permit the Kowalski two-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD). The basis of the decision relied mostly on the fact that the Town Plan discourages development of the Forest and Conservation zone. Rich stated that, in effect, he thought that this meant that no PRD could be approved in the Forest and Conservation zone regardless of the fact that the zoning ordinance allows such uses. It was recommended that this be considered when developing the build-out analysis and in future zoning ordinance updates.

15. Assignment of Tasks in Work Plan
    The 2007 task list outlined in the January 24^th minutes was briefly reviewed. Members were asked to consider their interest in taking charge of certain tasks. This will be further reviewed at upcoming meetings.

16. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agenda
    The pre-town meeting will conflict with the scheduled February 28^th. Rich said he will make a short presentation at the meeting regarding the build-out analysis. Jeanne stated she will not be available February 28^th. Nancy stated she will not be available for the March 27^th and April 10^th meetings.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Rich Baker, Acting Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the February 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

There was no Planning Commission meeting on February 28, 2008.

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Bob Light, and Anne Reed, were present. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present.

At 7:07 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

17. Zoning Administrator      Report

Bob reported the following:

§         There is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to require Onion River campground to revert back to a seasonal use only.

§         There is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to require a temporary garage structure placed within the required front setback to be removed. Bob asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to consider changing how to address temporary structures in the zoning ordinance. Bob said it is expensive to take enforcement to the Environmental Court. Rich said that there is an option in the state law for the Zoning Administrator to go to the Judicial Bureau with violations. This option allows the Zoning Administrator to write a ticket and generally does not require involvement of the town attorney. This would require an ordinance amendment. This option could be discussed with the Select Board.

§         Bob discussed the controversy in Plainfield about the amendment to require road frontage for all subdivisions.

§         Bob discussed the treatment of the exemption of agricultural uses from zoning and how they do not currently get a permit. He noted that the zoning ordinance requires farmers constructing agricultural buildings to submit a plan to Bob. He suggested he issue a permit that has no associated fee so that the listers have a record of construction. He also said it is sometimes confusing when a structure qualifies as agricultural.

18. CVRPC Report

Jean reported:

§         CVRPC is still reviewing the regional plan that is being amended.

§         That the growth centers bill 828 and 863 are controversial.

19. In-Depth Build-Out Analysis Review

Rich summarized the ten build-outs presented by Dan Currier (from CVRPC) at the February 14, 2008 meeting. Five scenarios were considered for the build-outs. Each scenario was analyzed with and without weighted constraints. Weighted constraints include existing natural restrictions (i.e. steep slopes, flood zones, wetlands etc), built lands, and conserved lands.  Rich reviewed the summary tables of the results for the weighted build-outs and the build-out maps (details of the build-out results can be obtained from the Planning Commission). The Planning Commission focused their review mostly on the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning district. Each of the scenarios reviewed result in significant differences in eventual development potential in the town.

Rich explained that there is still remaining grant funding to include additional scenarios. Rich suggested that the Planning Commission should hold one or two public meetings to review the build-out scenarios in order to get public input before drafting any possible changes to the zoning. The consensus of the Commission was that this would be worthwhile. Additional ideas for build-outs were discussed. Rich was asked to talk to Dan about how the build-outs could help evaluate the potential for cluster developments. Possible zoning changes in the area of Hollister Hill were discussed. This area does not include any lands in the Forest and Conservation District. It is believed that this was done because the original drafters of the zoning ordinance considered this area a potential growth area due to the possible availability of Plainfield municipal sewage. The Plainfield sewage line was never extended up Hollister Hill. The potential for additional development in the village area was discussed. The consensus of the members was that the small size of the village area required a detailed analysis by parcel in order to better understand development potential. The recent Environmental Court case involving the proposed Kowalski PRD in the Forest and Conservation District was discussed. It was the consensus of the members that the Environmental Court essentially ruled that no PRD could be built in the Forest and Conservation District. This will be considered when drafting any possible zoning changes resulting from the build-out analysis.

20. Approval of Minutes for February 14, 2008

Nancy made the motion, minutes passed with one correction –- Item 7. Apr 4th meeting should be Apr 10th.

21. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agenda

The Commission agreed to attend the March 20th CVRPC Housing Workshop instead of having a meeting on March 27^th. The Planning Commission will meet with Select Board on April 10^th to discuss flood plain and riparian buffer draft ordinances and update them on the build-out analysis work. Nancy noted she was note available for the April 10^th meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the March 13, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Bob Light, Anne Reed and Jean Matthew were present. John Warshow, Chris Martin, Laura Johnson, and Arthur Gillman were also present.

At 7:00 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

 

22.Review of Draft Flood Hazard District Ordinance
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed draft of the Flood Hazard ordinance with the Selectboard. The Commission and Selectboard reviewed comments received at a January 15, 2008 Selectboard public hearing on the draft ordinance.

Rich said he did a GIS analysis of the Fluvial Erosion Hazard (FEH) map developed by the Vermont River Management Section and found that 8 buildings in the Flood Hazard District were also in the FEH, 8 buildings in the Agricultural and Rural Residential District were also in the FEH, and 17 buildings in the Village District were also in the FEH. Rich explained that the proposed ordinance only applied to the 8 buildings in both the Flood Hazard District and FEH and that the final FEH maps were not available at the time the ordinance was drafted. Maps showing the buildings within the FEH were reviewed. Rich recommended the language regarding the FEH within the proposed ordinance be removed and that the Planning Commission work with the state to further refine the FEH boundaries. The consensus of the Selectboard was to remove the FEH language.

The language regarding storage of materials within the floodway was reviewed and revised for clarity.

Laura suggested adding the some language relating the ordinance purpose to the Town Plan. She recommended adding the following to the end of the State of Purpose section: “E) to develop regulations that achieve the goals and principals in the Town Plan.”  The consensus of the Selectboard was to amend the ordinance as Laura proposed.

Rich offered to amend the ordinance as proposed for further review by the Selectboard. The Selectboard will review the changes, make any further revisions, and schedule a second public hearing. The goal is to have the draft ordinance on the November ballot.

23.Review of Riparian Buffer Ordinance
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed draft of the Riparian Buffer ordinance with the Selectboard. The Commission and Selectboard reviewed comments received at a January 15, 2008 Selectboard public hearing on the draft ordinance.

Laura commented that she did not see the need for the 25-foot vegetative buffer along water bodies. She said that she felt there were no environmental benefits to such a buffer and that she was concerned that it was a taking of an individual’s property. Rich disagreed with Laura’s comments and stated that both state and federal environmental agencies were strongly encouraging the preservation of vegetative buffers for a variety of reasons. Anne concurred with Rich’s assessment of the environmental benefits. John and Bob questioned the ability to enforce a vegetative buffer requirement. Rich and Jeanne said they also shared those concerns. Bob said he did not know of any enforcement actions taken regarding the existing 25-foot natural buffer. It was suggested to just leave in the existing 25-foot natural buffer language. Rich pointed out that this would require the Zoning Administrator to enforce the 25-foot natural buffer requirement since he must, by state law, enforce the ordinance literally. Rich said the new language was less restrictive than the current natural buffer requirement because it included exemptions.  Arthur Gillman questioned if the proposed language would not allow him to remove trees he had along the river. Rich said it would limit the clearing to 50 feet. The consensus of the Selectboard was to remove the language regarding the requirement for a 25-foot riparian buffer.

John commented that the language regarding the definition of water bodies should be at the beginning of the ordinance and that the dates of the USGS map and wetland maps should be referenced. Bob said that the zoning map should be revised to show the wetlands and USGS streams. The consensus of the Selectboard was to amend the ordinance as per John’s suggestion.

Laura said she found the language regarding the measurement of where to measure the 75-foot building setback to be confusing. Rich said that this was based upon a model ordinance developed by Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT). John asked if a graphic could be added to further clarify this section. Rich said that there was a graphic in the VLCT ordinance that could easily be added. The consensus of the Selectboard was to add a graphic.

Rich offered to amend the ordinance as proposed for further review by the Selectboard. The Selectboard will review the changes, make any further revisions, and schedule a second public hearing. The goal is to have the draft ordinance on the November ballot.

24.Review of 2008-9 Planning Commission Workplan
Rich briefly reviewed the Planning Commission workplan. He said that the build-out analysis was going well. He noted that the various possible changes being considered (including requiring road frontage for new lots or changing the required lot sizes) made significant differences in the overall potential for development in the town. Given the time remaining for the meeting, Rich suggested a more in-depth review with the Selectboard in a few months

Rich then proceeded with reviewing the other work tasks. The Selectboard made no suggestions for any changes.

Due to the remaining meeting time, the Zoning Administrator’s report, the CVRPC report, and approval of the March 13th minutes were postponed to the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Rich Baker, Acting Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, and Anne Reed, were present. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present.

At 7:10 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

25. CVRPC Report

Jean is on an Act 250 committee for review of Route 2 improvements. Jean and other members discussed the merits of the Housing workshop that they attended last month. Rich talked to Preston Jump, Executive Director of Central Vermont Land Trust (CVLT), about assisting with an affordable housing project like the senior housing in Cabot. Preston indicated that CLVT would help with potential projects identified by the town.  Nancy noted that Preston recently resigned from CLVT.

26. Approval of Minutes

§     March 13, 2008: Anne noticed a typographical error in item 3, change rules to ruled.

§     April 10, 2008: No changes.

Jean moved to accept the minutes: March 13 as edited, and April 10 as presented. All were in favor. The members discussed the proper address to use to send the minutes to the Field Notes.

27. Follow-Up Discussion of April 10 Joint Session with the Select Board

The members discussed the joint meeting with the Select Board regarding the proposed riparian buffer amendment and the proposed Flood Hazard District amendments. It was noted that the proposed riparian buffer regulations at the state level did not pass. Members had differing opinions about the riparian buffer amendment. However, all members realize it is up to the Select Board to propose the final draft for consideration by the voters. The Select Board must send the final draft back to the Planning Commission before holding another hearing on the amended ordinances. 

28. Assignment of Tasks in Work Plan

Build-Out Analysis Tasks:

§     Rich will prepare a report summarizing the analysis. The summary will cover where Marshfield has been and describe options of where we could go. He would like to include data on where the building has been occurring in the last 10 years to show trends. His goal is to inform the residents what are the likely number of houses that could be built over a period of years given the current zoning and various possible amendments.

§     Rich would also like to have the Commission conduct some public information meetings in the fall for feedback on the development possibilities. This input would help the Commission evaluate where people stand on the development issues.

§     Dan Currier from CVPRC prepared the View analysis report as requested. Dan also ran a build-out analysis for Hollister Hill.

§     Anne said that she would like to see a version of  maps that are overlaid on an ortho- photography. Rich suggested the map color code the existing and potential housing.

Subdivision Ordinance Update Tasks:

§     The DRB is considering streamlining the approval process. Dina explained what the DRB is considering changing. Jean will coordinate this effort.

§     Anne will review and suggest actions, if any, regarding existing curb cut regulations.

§     The Commission as a group will review the issue of parcels divided by roads.

§     Jean will review for adherence to Chapter 117.

Technical Corrections/Clarifications Tasks:

§     The Commission as a group will consider the definition of front of building.

§     The Commission as a group will consider the definition of a change of use.

§     CVRPC can create a revised map showing the corrected zoning district line at the end of Lyford Road with direction from the Commission.

Other

§     Jean will review suggestions for height of church steeple.

§     Work is completed for now with the Selectboard on the final floodplain amendments.

§     Work is completed for now with the Selectboard on the final riparian buffer amendments.

§     Jean will review and suggest changes to the telecommunication ordinance.

§     Jean will review and suggest changes on how to handle tarp and temporary structures.

§     Nancy will review and suggest actions, if any, on well-head protection regulations.

§     Anne will contact Village Trustees to see if there is any interested in obtaining Village Designation. Rich noted that this would be a good Municipal Planning Grant project.

§     Anne will review and suggest actions, if any, on obtaining scenic by-way designation for Route 2. She will contact Rich Phillips about his thoughts.

§     The Conservation Commission is interested in additional wetland mapping for the town. Rich noted that this would be a good Municipal Planning Grant project, but the Conservation Commission would need to prepare the scope of work and obtain preliminary cost estimates.

29. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas (5/8; 5/22; 6/12, 6/26)

§         5/8—Report back on some of the smaller tasks.

§         5/22—Further discussion of build out.

§         Members discussed not meeting in July and August when the Marshfield concerts are going on. MPC members are for that. Jean will not be available for 6/26 meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Bob Light and Annie Reed were present.

At 7:09 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

30. Zoning Administrator Report

Bob reported that there was little development activity. He reviewed the Onion River DRB case. He said that the campground owner has proposed being closed from December 1^st to April 1^st. The Town is considering this proposal as a possible solution.

31. CVRPC Report

Jean reported that the annual meeting was June 13^th. She said she also plAnnied to attend the Central Vermont Housing Summit on May 17th.

32. Approval of 4/24/08 Minutes

Annie moved to accept the 4/28/08 minutes as presented. All were in favor.

33. Follow Up of Task in Work Plan

Build-Out Analysis Tasks:

§     Rich will prepare a report summarizing the analysis for early June.

Subdivision Ordinance Update Tasks:

§     Jean has begun review of other subdivision ordinances. She discussed the inclusion of passive solar energy considerations.

§     Annie is reviewing the concept of requiring shared driveways in some situations.

Other

§     Jean reviewed her research on church steeple heights. The Commission reviewed the existing church steeples and the consensus was to not change the existing height regulations that limit all structures to 45 feet.

§     Rich reported that the Select Board has asked him to attend the 6/10 Select Board meeting to further discuss the riparian buffer amendment. Rich said he would be researching the history of this regulation.

§     Nancy said she obtained the state model ordinance for wellhead protection and would report back at a later date with recommendations.

§     Annie said she contacted Rich Phillips about the state scenic program and he said he had not investigated it. Annie will review the program benefits and will report back at a later date with recommendations.

§     Annie reported that there is a Conservation Commission task force that is investigating a scope of work for possible additional wetland mapping.

34. Discussion of Definitions for Front of Building and Change of Use

Bob reviewed the need for definitions of front of building in order to clarify where to measure the height of the building and the need to clarify when a change of use requires DRB review. The Commission discussed various alternatives for the front of building definition. It was proposed to read "The side of the building closest to, and most parallel to, the street." The issue of corner lots was discussed. The “front of building” and “change of use” definitions will be discussed more at the next meeting.

35. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas (5/22; 6/12, 6/26)

§         5/22—Further discussion front of building and change of use definitions.

§         6/12- Possible review of initial build out report to be drafted by Rich

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Rich Baker, Acting Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the May 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission members Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Annie Reed, and Bob Light were present. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present.

At 7:10 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

36. Zoning Administrator Report

Bob discussed concerns about the expiration of permits and discussed the current procedures regarding conditional use approval. After some discussion, this item was added to the Planning Commission task list for further consideration.

Bob also discussed concerns about the height of fences. Fences are currently exempt from zoning review. After some discussion, this item was added to the Planning Commission task list for further consideration.

Bob discussed concerns about the possible demolition of the yellow barn on Route 2. The Planning Commission came to the consensus that preservation of the historic barn was a worthwhile project, but it would be more appropriate as a project for the Historic Commission or Conservation Commission.

37. CVRPC Report

Jean reported that CVRPC had their annual meeting and elected board members and that the Transportation commission is working on bridge and culvert inventory. She also reported on the  housing needs workshop she attended.

38. Approval of Minutes for May 8, 2008

Annie moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded, and all were in favor.

39. Temporary structures

Concerns about temporary structures were discussed. It was the consensus of the Commission to not change the requirements including requiring the same setback as other structures. Jean will work with Bob on how to better educate the public regarding the existing requirements including putting an article in Field Notes and possibly adding something to the tax bill mailing.

40. Definition of Front of Building

Bob said that Attorney Gilles has provided the town an opinion on determining the front of the building. Further discussion was tabled until that opinion is provided.

41. Definition of Change of Use

Bob discussed how the problem arises sometimes when there is a grandfathered use and a change occurs not allowing any conditional use review. It was noted that most of the current commercial uses existed before zoning. Due to the time remaining, further discussion was tabled to a future meeting.

42. Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas

The June 12^th meeting will focus on further review of the build-out analysis. No meetings will be held in July and August.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the May 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Annie Reed, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. At 7:10 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

43.Approval of Minutes for May 22, 2008

Annie moved to accept the minutes with a minor edit, seconded, and all were in favor.

44.Zoning Administrator Report

Bob mentioned that land development is slower than last year. Bob discussed an issue with a non-permitted structure in the Floodplain and Water Conservation District.

45.CVRPC Report

Public hearings on the draft regional plan will be held on July 8, 2008 and September 9, 2008 at the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce. The Planning Commission discussed the Act 250 committee hearing regarding the Route 2 widening where it goes through the town of Danville.

46.Review of July 10, 2008 Meeting with the Selectboard Regarding the Riparian Buffer Ordinance

Rich reported that Selectboard member Laura Johnson wanted to limit the existing watercourse setback to apply only to named streams (as opposed to all year-round streams). The Selectboard amended the draft accordingly. Bob observed that this is the first time that he recalls that the Marshfield Planning Commission’s recommendations have not been approved by the Selectboard. The Marshfield Planning Commission does not support the Laura Johnson amendment because it provides less environmental protection of streams.

47.Discussion of Front of Building Definitions

The Commission proposed the following definition for the front of the building: "The side of the building closest to, and most parallel to, the street." This definition will be reviewed again before changing the zoning ordinance.

48.Further Discussion of Change of Use Definition

The Commission reviewed a previous Marshfield DRB decision on this matter. The Commission discussed what constitutes a change of use and when our ordinance should require a review. The Commission proposed adding the following requirement to the end of the commercial and industrial conditional use sections in the Village District (Section 410) and Agricultural and Rural Residential District (Section 420): “A new Conditional Use permit is required for any change from one business operation to another (for example, from a hardware store to a video rental store) regardless of when it was established.” This language will be reviewed again before changing the zoning ordinance.

49.Assigning Priorities for Fall Meetings

Jean will work on updating the subdivision ordinance. Nancy is working on possible regulations for well-head protection. Nancy suggested that this could be an item for interim zoning since it is too late to get it on the November ballot. The Marshfield Planning Commission will hold public forums on the build-out analysis.

50.Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas

Our June 26 meeting will be dedicated to a summary of the Build-Out analysis. We will hold no meetings in July & August (the members will work on their assigned projects).

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the June 12, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Bob Light, Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, and Annie Reed. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. At 7:10 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Rich Baker, with a quorum present.

51.Approval of Minutes for June 12, 2008

Annie moved to accept the minutes, seconded, and all were in favor.

52.Agreement on front of building definition and change of use language as in June 12 minutes

§         Bob presented a previous environmental court decision regarding this matter. Our proposed definition reads, “The side of the building closest to, and most parallel to, the street.” All members were in favor of using this definition.

§         The following proposed language regarding what is a change of use that requires conditional use review was suggested to be added in the zoning ordinance: “A new Conditional Use permit is required for any change from one business operation to another (for example, from a hardware store to a video rental store) regardless of when it was established.”

The above language was suggested to be added to any proposed zoning amendments to be considered for a vote at the Town meeting.

53.Zoning Administrator Report

§         Bob calculated that land development is down by exactly half, compared to last year.

§         Bob discussed an issue with using a road as a de-facto division for a subdivision. There is case law to say that if a road functionally separates a lot, then it is two different parcels. This is generally the case with state roads. Since this is not currently addressed in our zoning ordinance, Bob and the DRB should use the case law. We will add this to our fall work plan as a high priority.

54.Review of Build-Out Summary and Discussion On How to Proceed with Project

For the build-out summary, Rich took all of the spreadsheets and maps and analysis that Regional Planning prepared, and worked to pare it down to the basic proposals and results. Overall, the members found the summary to be useful and easy to understand. Several editorial changes were suggested. Rich will make the changes and email the summary out to the members for comments.

A fall forum was suggested in order to educate the public and to get informal public input regarding possible zoning changes before drafting any amendments and going through formal public hearings. The Commission agreed to hold two forums in late September or early October. It was suggested to distribute the summary and a forum flyer to all property owners. Rich will investigate options for distribution.

55.Discussion of Support for Route 2 Corridor Study

Rich reviewed a possible Route 2 corridor study being initiated by Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission staff. The study would involve a fair time commitment from Marshfield Planning Commission members. It was the consensus of the members that the proposed work plan for the upcoming year did not allow adequate volunteer time to assist with the study. Rich will communicate this to CVRPC.

56.Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas

§         The next meeting will be August 28, 2008.

§         Members will work on their assigned projects over the summer.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the June 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

The Marshfield Planning Commission did not meet in July or on August 14, 2008.

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jean Mathews and Annie Reed. Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., with a quorum present.

57.Approval of Minutes for June 26, 2008

Nancy moved to accept the minutes with one typo correction, seconded, and all were in favor.

58.Select Board Hearing on Riparian Buffer and Flood Hazard District Regulations

Rich reported that a Select Board hearing was scheduled for September 16, 2008 on the Riparian Buffer and Flood Hazard District Regulations. Nancy said she would try to attend. No other members were free to attend. Annie said that she gave notice of the hearing to the Conservation Commission who have taken a special interest in the changes.

59.Build-Out Public Forum

A tentative date for a public forum to present the build out analysis was set for October 9^th with an alternative date of October 23^rd. The Commission agreed that a flyer should be sent to all homes. The following tasks were assigned:

§         Contact DHCA to see if a grant amendment was required – Rich

§         Contact Dan Currier at CVRPC about his availability – Rich

§         Edit and modify report Rich drafted to make it easier for the general public to understand and to make it shorter. – Nancy and Annie

§         Determine if the mailing could go to "postal patron" and also to non-local addresses on grand list –Nancy

§         Determine mailing count for local and non-local parcels on grand list – Rich

§         Get quotes for printing – Nancy and Annie

§         Check on room availability – Annie

§         Check on getting information in Twinfield Notes – Nancy

60.Review of Upcoming Meeting Schedule and Agendas

§         9/11- Final mailing and logistics for forum (Nancy will chair meeting since Rich will not be able to attend)

§         9/25 – Final preparation for forum/Review forum agenda

§         10/9 – Build Out Forum

§         10/23 – Alternate date for Build Out Forum (or possible joint meeting with DRB)

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Baker, Chair

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the August 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Marshfield Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008         7 PM, Old Schoolhouse Common

Members present:  Nancy Everhart, Jean Matthew, Annie Reed, Bob Light.  Nancy called the meeting to order at 7:15 pm with a quorum present.

1.                  Approval of Minutes for August 28, 2008.

Annie moved to accept the minutes from the Aug. 28 meeting; all in favor.

2.                  Select Board hearing on Riparian Buffer and Flood Plain Ordinance on 9/16

Annie discussed the Conservation Commission’s response to the changes to the riparian and flood plain ordinance proposed by the Select Board. The state requires a 50 ft. buffer of all class I and class II wetlands – Annie estimates there are 10 – 30 mapped wetlands in the town, with most located in the Forest & Conservation District.  Bob asked for a copy of the wetlands map – Annie will make sure he gets one.

3.                  Build out public forum

The group discussed some of the details to organizing the public forum on October 9.  Annie will get the two lists from Bobbi (voter check list and grand list addresses) and weed out the duplicates.  Nancy will keep working on a shorter summary, and will e-mail a revised version to the group.  She will also submit an article for the Field Notes (deadline is Sept. 15).  The goal is to mail a forum notice and the summary the week of Sept. 22.

4.                  Zoning Administrator Report

Bob reported that he had issued 19 permits as of Sept. 5, as opposed to 31 by the same time last year. In other words, there is much less development activity in town this year --  essentially, 2 new homes and 2 replacement homes, with the remainder of the permits being minor additions, etc.

5.                  CVRPC Report

Jean attended the most recent CVRPC meeting Tuesday night, Sept. 9.  CVPRC has a blog site now.  Ned Swanberg is Vermont’s new FEMA Director.  Jean reported on other activities of the CVRPC as well.

The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Everhart, Vice-Chair

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, and Jean Matthew. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present.

61.Selectboard riparian buffer and flood-plain ordinance hearing follow-up

§         Nancy reported on the hearing and said it was well attended and that various different views were reported. The Selectboard formed an ad-hoc committee for further study and recommendations for final language for the riparian buffer ordinance. The ad-hoc committee will include a representative from the Planning Commission, Conservation Commission, Select Board and Jon Groveman. The Commission appointed Rich Baker to act as the Planning Commission representative.

62.Build-out forum: 10/23

§         Final review of build-out summary—Nancy reported that a summary is going to appear in the Twinfield News. The Commission decided to limit the mail-out to a flyer and developed some draft language. Nancy agreed to finalize the language, send it out to the Commission for comments, and take care of printing.

§         Forum mailing—Mailing will be going out the week of October 6^th.

§         Forum agenda—Rich will provide an overview of the agenda, explain why did we do a build-out analysis, how was it funded and will introduce Dan.  Dan will then give his presentation. The Commission suggested that Dan show orthophotography behind the build-out points and only present the build-outs with constraints. The forum will then be open to discussion.
Dina is will take minutes. Rich will act as moderator and not try to answer every question, but direct the answers.
Holding the forum on October 23. We would like to have a joint meeting with the DRB in November or December.

63.Zoning Administrator Report

Bob was not in attendance to report.

64.CVRPC report

Jean is planning to go to the Housing Workshop. The MPC discussed various education opportunities.

65.Approval of Minutes for Sept. 11, 2008

Annie moved to accept the minutes with two minor corrections, seconded, and all were in favor.

66.Agenda for 10/9

The next meeting will be on October 9.The final Build-Out Forum details will be discussed. Rich will review the state model wellhead protection ordinance and come prepared to suggest how to proceed.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, and Bob Light. Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present.

67. Approval of minutes for 9/24/08

The 9/25/08 minutes were approved with an amendment that Rich was appointed to act as the representative on the riparian buffer ad hoc committee.

68. Riparian buffer and flood hazard ordinance hearing follow up

Rich reported that the ad hoc committee included Michael Zahner, Jon Groveman, Laura Johnson and himself. They are scheduled to meet 10/15 and 10/30. The Planning Commission needs their recommended draft by the 11/13 meeting in order to have a Planning Commission hearing on 12/11 and to present it to the Select Board by 12/16. Any later may make it difficult to get it on the Town Meeting Day ballot.

69. Build-out forum logistics

Nancy reported the forum mailing is going out within the next few days. Rich will coordinate the forum agenda; Nancy will coordinate refreshments, printing extra copies of the report, and emailing the report to Bobbie to publish on the town web site; and Annie will bring snacks.

70. Review of need for wellhead protection regulations

Rich presented maps of the existing public wells and their associated protection areas, discussed the state requirements regarding wellhead protection and reviewed the state model wellhead protection ordinance. The Commission reviewed the existing wellhead protection language in the Zoning Ordinance and found it to be vague. This language will be deleted when the new flood hazard district regulations are adopted. Upon review of the existing Zoning Ordinance, it was decided that all uses that may have an adverse impact on wellheads already require conditional use review. Under conditional use review, the adverse impact on community facilities is reviewed. Given that public wellheads would qualify as a community facility, it was decided that the existing conditional use review would be adequate to make sure that new development would not adversely impact existing wellheads. Bob suggested that the zoning map include the wellhead protection zone.

71. Zoning administrator report

Bob reported that he was concerned about the definition of a change of use. The Commission previously agreed on language to address Bob's concerns. It was decided to see if it was possible to include the new language either as part of one of the proposed ordinances for a spring vote or as a stand alone ordinance. Bob said he thought Marshfield may be found to be a desirable location to locate a mobile home parks given the lack of affordable housing in the area. It was pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance treats mobile home parts as a PUD and that the Commission previously thought this provided for adequate regulation of mobile home parks.

72. CVRPC report

Jean was not present to make a report.

73. Upcoming Agendas:

The following tentative meeting schedule was approved:

§         10/23: Build Out Forum

§         11/13: Review Riparian Buffer Draft from Ad Hoc Committee

§         11/27: No meeting–Thanksgiving

§         12/11: Ordinance Hearing/Adoption of Draft

§         12/25: No meeting– Christmas

§         Early 2009:  Complete updates on Subdivision Ordinance

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Rich Baker, Acting Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the October 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

 Build-Out Public Forum Minutes

Planning Commission members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, and Bob Light. Rich Baker called the forum to order at 7:00 p.m. Approximately 40 residents attended the forum. A list of forum attendees is available from the Planning Commission.

74. Introduction

Rich Baker introduced the build-out and briefly explained what is a "Build-Out", reasons to complete a "Build-Out", project funding, and future steps to be taken by the Planning Commission.  He then reviewed the agenda and opportunities for public input.

75. CVRPC presentation

Dan Currier presented the technical details of the build-out. Rich Baker reviewed the summary report of anticipated development given various zoning scenarios by zoning district.

76. Public comments and questions

Below is a brief summary of comments and questions and responses (in italics) by Rich Baker, forum moderator, Planning Commission members and Dan Currier:

·        Does this include only residential structures? —Yes.

·        There are already 14 homes in the Forestry and Conservation District and new ones can only be added through a PUD. Technically PUD's are allowed, but the DRB will never let you do it. Are they allowed? —A recent court case upheld a DRB decision denying a PUD in the Forestry and Conservation zone. The Planning Commission thought this case severely limited the ability to create a PUD in this district.

·        What would a graph look like if we did setbacks in the Forestry and Conservation District at 800 feet rather than 600 feet from the road? —This could be another build-out analysis.

·        How many acres or % of the town is currently in the Forestry and Conservation District?  —50-65%. Agricultural and Rural Residential is the next largest, then Village.

·        How many home are being built? —Since 1970, approximately 11 per year on the average.

·        What are the major trends in the state and the region, and what kind of growth predictions do we have for this region? —Most of the towns are less than 2% growth. Some towns, like Waterbury and Marshfield are a little higher, like 4%. Regionally we want to share the housing demand. Growth is slow right now overall for the whole region.

·        It seems like when you drive through Marshfield every day there is more strip development. Eliminating the right of way to rear lots will add more strip development, and removing the PUD's will lead to even more. How can we preserve the beauty by not having the houses line the streets. — One scenario that has been talked about is using the road frontage quota for total number of lots, but configure them behind each other. PUD's could be used to accomplish that as well. Various zoning changes are being reviewed to limit strip development.

·        In past surveys, when you conduct a town survey, most people who answer that they want the Forestry and Conservation District preserved, live in the Forestry and Conservation District, but it turns out to be more people than actually live there.

·        Personal experience has found that a PRD is not really allowed in the Forestry and Conservation District. However, no one would see the development.

·        Compliments to the Planning Commission  for doing some good planning, instead of just catching up on ordinance rewrites. The Town could consider doing something like what Plainfield did, where they limit the number of units built per year. Considering the 600-foot limit, is a hard issue, how to use it but not destroy it. There is a good portion of the Forestry and Conservation District that you could “lock up” but still allow portions of the area for development through flexibility in regulations. – One approach is called performance zoning where you set standards for desired development. For example, you might allow development 1000’ from the road, but there are special requirements, such as we not seeing the house, additional buffers, screening, etc.

·        Has there been much discussion of creating more density in the village or expanding the size of the village, expand a grown center. —Yes, we have looked at the village as a growth center and think there is opportunity for multi-family.

·        If there is a change from 2 acres zoning to 5 acres, what happens to land that is set aside in a land trust? — This will need to be discussed.

·        We don’t need to restrict the number of lots through zoning which would have impact on our children. Not sure why to not allow back lots. Not going to accept great development, is strict zoning counter to what most people can afford now. Will lose what we love about Marshfield.

·        How does this affect farming —Agriculture is exempt from zoning.

·        Could there be other areas of towns were there could be denser development, such as 1 acres lots, so that people could afford to build houses.—This could be considered.

·        The items being discussed are: eliminating PUD's in Forestry and Conservation District, eliminating back lots, and increase acreage. This is very anti-family. —The scenarios are only what was reviewed, not what is being proposed.

·        Doesn’t changing the development requirements represent a taking of the development rights of property owners? —The Marshfield Planning Commission is advisory only. All changes require a town vote.

·        With oil prices, the way to go toward is to develop hamlets with maybe 40 individual units on 10 acres of land with single- and multi-family units and shared rsources. —You could do that now, as a PUD, in the Agricultural and Rural Residential. We may want to consider bonuses for such development.

·        I want to build a retirement home and the only place he can do it is in the Forestry and Conservation District in back 40 acres which has always been a hay field. Doesn’t mind a long driveway, also doesn’t mind people who live up next to the road. Think there is way too much green on the map now. Should do an analysis of moving the Forestry and Conservation District back 1000’ and see how it looks.

·        Thanks to the Planning Commission and Dan for doing this analysis. This is very helpful. The forethought that the town had of designing the districts and preserving the rural nature of Marshfield has been incredible. Think that encouraging clustered housing is a good idea. Would be good to have some denser more flexible development patterns. Consider that when you have homes way off the road, it makes it harder for the fire department and the wildlife (with having domestic dogs out there). This is a beautiful town. There are many houses within 600’ that are not visible at all from the road. The zoning we have is pretty important.

·        Every piece of land has a vision of its own. We have to get out of the way and let the land speak. To put a barrier on things, 1-acres, 2-acres, 300’, is very unfriendly. — The Planning Commission is considering how to allow flexibility in zoning. PUD's allow some flexibility right now.

·        What are the figures of how much a town needs to grow each year to support the town? — CVRPC did a fair housing plan for the region.

·        Our town is growing 1.5-2% per year. But what is the optimal growth?

·        Would like to see elderly housing.  —Keep in mind, the Planning Commission  is only 5 volunteer members and can work on a certain amount at one time. However, study groups or special work groups can work on specific issues and are welcome.

77. Next Steps

Rich thanked everyone for coming. The Planning Commission will review the comments, decide on other possible build-out scenarios, and consider zoning changes to allow more flexibility. The process will continue through next year.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the October 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, Jean Matthew, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present.

78.Approval of Minutes

§         October 9, 2008—A few minor corrections were made. Annie moved to accept the October 9^th Minutes with the minor corrections, seconded, and all were in favor.

§         October 23, 2008—Rich suggested removing the names of people so that we can publish the minutes as aggregate data, or as frequently asked questions. Also, it was suggested to indicate that the answers came also from the Marshfield Planning Commission and Dan Courier. Annie moved to accept the October 23^rd Minutes with corrections suggested, seconded, and all were in favor.

79.Flood Hazard District and Water Conservation Overlay District Amendments

Rich reviewed the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. The Commission discussed item 2 under the section Permitted Uses: " Roadway or driveways not involving a bridge so long as the road or driveway is not within the first 25 feet adjacent to a stream, lake, or pond over 5 acres in size". Bob stated that he currently does not issue permits for driveways so if we want to keep this item, it should be moved to the section above, Activities Permitted Without a Zoning Permit. It was suggested to list footbridges under Activities Permitted Without A Zoning Permit instead of under those requiring a permit. Annie suggested modifying "water quality" to "water quality and quantity" under the Purpose section. Bob suggested requiring conditional use and site plan review of all manmade ponds instead of just ponds over ¼ acre in size. A few minor editorial changes were also recommended. The consensus was to make all the recommended changes.

The Planning Commission hearing was scheduled for 12/11/2008 at 7:30 pm at the Schoolhouse Common (The date was later changed to 12/18/08). The final draft is due to the Selectboard immediately following the hearing in order to accommodate a Town Meeting vote.

80.Route 2 Widening

The Commission discussed if the Planning Commission was interested in securing party status for the Act 250 review regarding the Route 2 widening.  The consensus was to obtain party status. Annie will follow-up on this matter. Annie thinks that the Selectboard is interested in becoming involved, but wants to hear from the town first.

81.Build-Out Forum Discussion

The Commission reviewed the forum comments listed in the 10/23 minutes. Bob suggested that if we consider moving land into the Forestry and Conservation District, then we must expand the Agricultural and Rural Residential district, so that we are not only taking away land, but also giving some back. The Commission discussed considering bonuses and performance zoning, where frontage requirements are slightly less in exchange for building back lots. Discussion occurred regarding how much setback is required to limit visibility.

The Commission discussed John Warsaw's request to come to the Marshfield Planning Commission meeting to discuss his opinions on requiring road frontage.  The Commission agreed to schedule John for 12/11 at 7 PM. It was recommended that at least one DRB member attend as well, since part of the concern is in how the DRB is interpreting the ordinance.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, seconded, all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the November 13, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Joint Meeting with Development Review Board

MPC members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, Jean Matthew, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. DRB members present: Paul Brierre, Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Chuck Bohn, and Vince Feeney. Guests present: Jenny, John and Ethan Warshow.

Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with a quorum present.

82.Discussion with John and Jenny Warshow regarding creating lots via rights-of-way (see attachment)

John and Jenny reviewed information they submitted to Planning Commission on October 19, 2008. Issues they addressed included:

·        Concern with what they consider being a misinterpretation of Section 302 Required Frontage on, or Access to, Public Roads.

·        That the usage of right-of-ways should only apply to existing lots, and should not be allowed for new subdivisions.

Rich suggested that the issue be considered as:

·        What is allowed now and how has it been interpreted.

·        What should it be?

·        How can the ordinance be clarified with better standards?

The Commission and DRB members present reviewed the Section 302 language and recognized the ambiguity and conflict within section, but said that the last sentence clearly allows right-of-ways for new lots. There was agreement that the long-time interpretation and practice has been to allow right-of-ways to rear lots in new subdivisions.

John and Jenny said this was not the intent of this section. It was pointed out that what counts is how it is written and that we can only speculate what was intent since no one at the meeting was present when the section was drafted.

The group discussed various scenarios of how and when road frontage would be required.

It was pointed out that a recently completed build-out shows that changing the requirements to require frontage substantially reduces potential development in Marshfield. Commission members said that they wanted to make sure that the impacts of any changes in the frontage requirements were well understood before being adopted. The problems in Plainfield where they suddenly required frontage for new lots was discussed.

It was pointed out that the it would take approximately 40 years to be build out even if frontage was required for all new lots. Members discussed how limiting development has an impact on affordable housing and the ability to provide lots to family members.

The group reviewed the build-out public forum discussion. It was pointed out that people are concerned about too much development adjacent to roads and the desire to create a few lots for family members or to sell. The group discussed the balance of allowing development while not taking away property rights. Various ideas about allowing more flexibility in development to better achieve the desire growth patterns were discussed. It was recommended to review other ordinances.

The Warshows were thanked for their comments and attendance. This matter will be further discussed as the Planning Commission reviews and makes recommendations for modifications of the Subdivision Ordinance.

Discussion with DRB

The Commission discussed areas of concern with the DRB in regards to subdivisions. Two issues raised by the DRB include:

§         Clarifying if a road is ever a natural boundary.

§         Removing the sketch review process and replacing it with an optional information meeting to discuss the general submittal requirements.

The Commission and DRB discussed the process to update the subdivision ordinance. It was agreed that it was best to have the whole Commission involved in the process and to not have an ad hoc committee work on a draft. The Commission will start in January by reviewing the approval process. DRB members were invited to attend the update process or to provide written comments. Rich will copy the DRB on all emails relating to the Subdivision Ordinance update.

There was a discussion about accessory uses to camps in the Forest and Conservation District. Bob said he should issue permits for accessory uses since he can issue permits for a camp.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, seconded, all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the December 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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

Meeting Minutes

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Annie Reed, Jean Matthew, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. Guests present: Paul Brierre and Laura Johnson. Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present.

83.Approval of Minutes

§         November 13, 2008—Jean moved to accept the November 13^th minutes with the minor corrections, seconded, and all were in favor.

§         December 11, 2008— Jean moved to accept the December 11^th minutes with the minor corrections, seconded, and all were in favor.

84.Zoning Administrator Report

Bob reported that some people have taken up residence in temporary or seasonal dwellings due to difficult economic times and that it was difficult to enforce vacating these structures. He reported that in 2008  there was about a 50% reduction in the number of permits issued compared to 2007.

85.Route 2 Widening

Annie reviewed the status of the Route 2 widening within Marshfield. The Commission discussed the need for such improvements. No action was taken.

86.Planning Commission Hearing on Flood Hazard District Modifications and Watercourse Conservation Overlay District: 7:30 pm

There were no public comments on the Flood Hazard District modifications. Laura Johnson submitted a letter on behalf of Martin Johnson dated 12/18/08 regarding concerns with the Watercourse Conservation Overlay District ordinance. The Commission reviewed the letter with Laura. Laura stated that she felt that small bridges needed to maintain the property should not require a permit. After discussion, the Planning Commission modified the draft ordinance to not require a permit for bridges that do not have a foundation. Laura also requested the ordinance be modified to allow additional small open-sided structures on larger tracts of land. The proposed ordinance requires Development Review Board review when the aggregate area of structures within the watercourse setback exceeds 200 square feet. The consensus of the Commission was not to make the requested modification. Paul Brierre asked about the use of experts to review water quality standards. The Commission reviewed the existing regulations regarding this matter and agreed that the DRB could engage an expert if needed. Annie suggested some editorial changes. The consensus of the Commission was to make the recommended changes.

87.Approval of final Planning Commission version of ordinances for Select Board consideration

It was moved and approved to forward the Flood Hazard District Modifications and Watercourse Conservation Overlay District ordinances to the Select Board for consideration with the modifications noted above.

88.Upcoming Agendas/Tasks:

§         Election of 2009 officers

§         1/8 and 1/22 agendas – Review and Modify Subdivision Ordinance – Article II Review and Approval Process and Article III Application Information

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, seconded, all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the December 18, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Attest, _________________________________________________, Town Clerk

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