Marshfield Planning Commission 2009

Meeting Minutes

Marshfield Planning Commission · Thursday, January 8, 2009 · 7:00 p.m., Old School House Common

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 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present.

1. Election of 2009 officers

Rich was nominated as Chair. Nancy was nominated as Vice-Chair. Anne moved to appoint Rich as the Chair and Nancy as Vice-Chair. The motion was seconded and all were in favor. Motion carried.

2. Approval of December 18, 2008 Minutes

Nancy moved to accept the December 18 minutes with the minor corrections, seconded, and all were in favor.

3. Select Board Hearing on Flood Hazard District Modifications and Watercourse Conservation Overlay District: January 20.

Rich explained that there were still some additional grant funds to do build-out analysis through CVPRC and that the Planning Commission had expressed an interest in additional review of the village area. Rich reviewed a proposed scope of work emailed by Dan Currier from CVRPC.

The consensus of the Commission was for Dan to develop a contract for presentation and approval by the Selectboard.

There was also a request for the following maps: Agriculturally significant soils. Rare, threatened, and endangered species—both animal and plant. Natural communities. Wetlands. Rich explained that we can get GIS layers for this information.

5. Review and Modify Subdivision Ordinance — Discussion of Parcels Split by Roads

Bob Light went on record to say that the 1972 zoning ordinance was not 3-4 pages long, but much longer and involved than that, contrary to what John and Jenny Warshow said at the Marshfield Planning Commission meeting last month.

Bob discussed the VLCT article and a town attorney opinion regarding parcels split by a road. The courts have ruled that a parcel of land is actually two parcels when it is split by a road that functionally makes the parcel unusable as one parcel. This is generally the case with state roads. The case in town roads splitting a parcel is less clear and needs to be defined by the local zoning ordinance.

The Commission discussed the pros and cons of allowing parcels to be considered separate parcels when split by a town road. The consensus was that this is generally not desirable. However, it was the consensus that the existing parcels split by town roads should be continued to be considered one parcel since has been past practice. All agreed that the Winooski River also functionally separated a parcel from being used as one parcel.

§ Treat parcels currently split by town roads to be one parcel and to treat parcels split by state roads and Winooski River to be two parcels.

Bob discussed concerns about unapproved subdivisions being recorded. The Town Clerk requirements for recording a subdivision were discussed. Bob will follow up with Bobbi regarding his concerns.

There being no further business, Anne made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the January 8, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Anne Reed, and Bob Light. DRB member Paul Brierre was present. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present.

Anne moved to accept the January 8 minutes as submitted, seconded, and all were in favor.

Bob asked if there is there anything in the zoning to require a zoning permit for placing a pipe under a town road. Bob didn’t see any restrictions and the Planning Commission agreed.

Bob discussed work on a culvert under Holt Road to facilitate fish getting to a stream. The Conservation Commission has been helping facilitate this project. All agreed that, as proposed, no zoning approval was required.

Anne reported that she attended the Select Board hearing and that they did not make any further changes to the proposed amendments. The Select Board discussed if the amendments should be warned and voted upon as one or two items. They decided on warning it as two items. Selectboard member Laura is writing the summary of the two bills.

The Planning Commission reviewed draft language for a revised definition of a parcel based upon discussions at the last meeting. The following proposed changes (shown in underlined) were accepted: Parcel: A contiguous quantity of land in the possession of an owner. A parcel shall be considered contiguous although crossed or otherwise encumbered by town roads, private rights-of-way, utility line rights-of-way, easements, watercourses other than the Winooski River, or other like encumbrances or easements. Parcels under the same ownership shall be considered contiguous if they share a boundary at any point. A parcel is not considered to be contiguous if crossed by a state road or the Winooski River.

The Commission also reviewed draft language for a revision to the Subdivision design requirements for lots based upon discussions at the last meeting. The following proposed changes (shown in underlined) were accepted:
4021 LOTS
The layout of the lots shall conform to the ordinance and be appropriate for the intended construction. Corner lots should have extra width to permit a setback on each road. Side lot lines should generally be at right angles to roads. The DRB may require lower densities of development based on physical or other limitations of the site. Lots with irregular shapes such as curves, jogs or dog-legs should be avoided unless warranted by conditions of topography, the location of natural features, or existing roads. All subdivided lots must include suitable permanent survey monuments placed at street intersections and other necessary points as may be required, and the location thereof must be shown on the map of such plan. No new lots shall be created that are crossed by the Winooski River or by any public roads except for Class 4 roads or trails.

The above revised language will be incorporated into a future amendment involving various changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.

The Planning Commission reviewed the current subdivision approval process and the DRB's suggestions for revisions. The following changes were recommended. Rich will prepare draft language for review at an upcoming meeting:

· Eliminate the step of classifying a subdivision as major or minor in the public hearing since it is clear in the ordinance.

· Remove the sketch plan meeting as a requirement and instead add language that applicants can meet informally with the DRB before an application is submitted in order to review the procedures and general requirements for submittals. No formal decision will be issued based upon an informal, unwarned meeting.

· Require a 15-day warning for all subdivision hearings. Recessed hearings do not require further warning so long as they are for a date certain and announced at a hearing.

There was also discussion regarding the process of completing the DRB poster and providing the applicant with the abutter list, the abutter notification document, and the notice poster. This process needs to be clarified, agreed to by all involved parties, and documented.

February 12^th Agenda: Continue working on subdivision regulations. The DRB members are urged to attend and provide input.

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

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the January 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Jean Matthew, Nancy Everhart, Anne Reed, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was also present. DRB member Paul Brierre (arrived late for subdivision regulations review).

Nancy moved to accept the January 22 minutes with minor corrections. Anne seconded and all were in favor.

Jean reviewed the CVRPC discussion on hemp, which was very interesting. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t allow the growing of hemp.

Staff for the Vermont River Management division commented that our proposed floodplain hazard regulations do not comply with the latest changes in the FEMA regulations. The required changes are minor and pertain to requirements modified by FEMA after the Planning Commission prepared the current draft floodplain regulations. However, since it is on the ballot, has been through the local hearing process, and the required changes are minor, the town citizens will vote on it as proposed. We could consider passing interim zoning to capture the FEMA changes once they are complete or add the minor changes to a future zoning amendment.

The Selectboard approved the CVRPC contract. State grant funds will pay all the costs associated with the study. Anne will contact a member of the Village Trustees to make sure they are aware of the project and scope.

The Commission began review of the revised draft subdivision regulations prepared by Rich. The following revisions were approved for consideration in the final draft:

· Section 1040 — Language was revised to allow a waiver in order to achieve a "better design" instead of the current requirement that requires "extraordinary hardship" for a waiver to be considered.

· Section 1040 — Removed references to "variances" and "modifications" since state law uses the term "waivers". Paragraph order was revised.

· Section 1050 — Exemptions for leased parcels for agricultural and forestry purposes was removed since lease lots are not regulated by current zoning (so Section 1050 is not needed).

· Sections 1070 —Minor editorial changes to definitions were accepted as drafted by Rich except that the definition for subdivisions will not include leased lots. It was suggested to also define a "lot line adjustment".

· Section 1080 — The requirement for an initial meeting to just review the subdivision classification was removed since the classification is obvious as defined. Reference to shared septic systems in major subdivisions was removed since the town no longer has jurisdiction over septic approval.

· Discussion/brain storming regarding road frontage and right-of-way access issue

· Review draft language of any changes for road frontage and right-of-way access

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the February 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Jean Matthew, Nancy Everhart, Anne Reed, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker, was present and DRB members, Chuck Bohn and Paul Brierre, also attended.

Anne moved to accept the February 12 minutes with a one-sentence addition to explain the additional required flood hazard modifications. The motion was seconded, and all were in favor.

Bob brought to our attention that DRB approvals expire after three years and that this affects some DRB decisions made in the recent years. It was agreed that this should be noted in the decision cover letter and/or DRB decision.

Rich reviewed some comments he has received regarding the upcoming draft regulations that were on the ballot. Comments included:

· Residents have expressed concerns that some regulated streams do not exist on a map.

· Residents want to know how their development options differ between the existing and proposed regulations. How many non-conforming structures are created?

· There was discussion regarding the difference between a non-conforming use and a noncomplying structure (which does not meet a dimensional requirement, such as a setback) and how this distinction will be applied to the Watercourse Conservation Overlay District.

Rich attended the Pre-Town meeting. There was a very low attendance and the meeting was cancelled.

The Commission continued their review of the proposed subdivision amendments. The following revisions were approved for consideration in the final draft:

· Modified Section 2010, Sketch Plan Review, to be an optional informal meeting that would not involve a formal DRB finding.

· Modified Section 2020, Preliminary Plan Review, by clarifying plan submittal requirements, allowing 12 months instead of 6 months to submit a final plan, changed requirement for other permits to be obtained to require review by applicable agencies in order to comply with state statues, and decided not to include a waiver of final approval that was proposed in an initial draft.

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

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the February 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, and Bob Light. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was present. DRB members Paul Brierre and Chuck Bohn were present. Guests included Anne Reed and Tom Daley.

Nancy moved to accept the February 26^th minutes. The motion was seconded and all were in favor.

The Selectboard did not renew appointments for Planning Commission members, Anne Reed and Jean Matthew, whose terms expired at the March 2009 town meeting. The power to reappoint rests with the Selectboard. However, in the general opinion of the Planning Commission members, this was not handled in a respectful or sensitive manner, as follows: the Chair was not informed or given the opportunity to discuss the matter, the members who were not being renewed were not given the courtesy of a phone call, apparently there are no replacement members who have accepted appointments to the Commission, and, to the knowledge of the Commission, candidates are not beating down the door to serve.

The consensus was that the group has been working well together and it takes time to build such cohesion. Anne shared that she has really become committed to the work; she feels that it is important, and although she might not always agree with the positions or opinions of all the members, she respects the process.

Rich will work with Bobbi to update the zoning ordinance to reflect the amendment to the Flood Hazard District Regulations and the Watercourse Conservation Overlay District, and to have Bobbi print new ordinances.

Bob requested that the new zoning map be updated to show USGS streams with 75-foot buffers, new floodplain, impervious areas (building footprint), corrected 911 points, and notes about the stream buffer and flood hazard district requirements. Rich will contact CVRPC to prepare a draft map for review.

Bob discussed amendments to the zoning permit application to require the distance between any proposed development and existing streams.

The Commission continued their review of the proposed subdivision amendments. Tom Daley was present to offer his views on the subdivision draft revisions made to date. Tom previously served on the DRB. Tom recommended that:

· Sketch plan review be continued to be required in order to advise applicants on the subdivision process and to provide input on developing their proposed plans. Tom felt that this did not need to be warned.

· That the current requirement for the DRB to hold a hearing within 30 days of an application be continued.

· Suggested that subdivision approval be required even if a road bisects a parcel.

The Commission reviewed Tom's suggestions and discussed related state laws, opinions from the Town attorney, and related case law. No revisions were made to the original draft at this time. However, Tom's recommendations will be considered as the Commission prepares the final draft for a public hearing.

There being no further business, Bob made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the March 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Note: The Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for March 26, 2009 was cancelled due to a lack of quorum.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, and Jon Groveman. Secretary, Dina Bookmyer-Baker was present. DRB members Paul Brierre and Chuck Bohn were present. Guests included Tom Daley.

Nancy moved to accept the March 12^th minutes. The motion was seconded and all were in favor.

The Commission reviewed the new draft map from CVRPC. The following changes were recommended:

· Change the title of the map to Marshfield, Vermont Current Zoning Adopted March 3, 2009.

§ Remove all Impervious categories except "Structures" and remove "Impervious" title

§ Change "Watercourse Conservation Overlay District" to "75-Foot Setback From USGS Streams"

· Considering putting the structure layer on top of the 911 layer or remove the 911 point if there is a structure.

Bob reported on Lamberton property issues regarding the probate court subdividing the land and considering the road as a natural division. Bob asked if the court can create a subdivision without going through subdivision review. Rich previously posed the question to VLCT who said that the probate court can divide up a property for the heirs, but the land cannot be developed without going through the local zoning process.

The Select Board has asked the Town Attorney to review the issues with the Lamberton property and the issue of roads dividing parcels. Rich sent the proposed language under consideration regarding this matter to Attorney Gillies at the request of Bobbi.

The Commission then diverted from the regular agenda to discuss the issue of roads dividing parcels. Tom Daley discussed the Wilcox Vermont Supreme Court decision on this matter. In this case, the court found there was a need to determine on a case-by-case basis if the road functionally separated the parcel into two lots. If so, according to Tom, a town review could not require that the minimum lot size be satisfied. Tom further stated that the presence of a road does not automatically create a subdivision and that the town could require subdivision review. Tom suggested adding language to the Subdivision Ordinance that states that when reviewing subdivisions involving a parcel spilt by a road that the minimum lot size not be required when it is found that the road functionally separates the parcel. Tom did not recommend that the town regulations be amended to allow for an automatic subdivision of parcels spilt by a state road or the Winooski River (as has been discussed by the Planning Commission).

The Commission asked Rich to email Attorney Gillies to ask if a subdivision review could be required for parcels spilt by state roads. Attorney Gillies can then include this in his written response regarding the overall issue of parcels spilt by roads. No action was taken on this matter or on Tom's recommendations pending a response from Attorney Gillies.

Rich attended a half-day conference on the JAM Golf Court case. He reviewed the implications of the JAM Golf Court case in drafting new town regulations. In this case, the Vermont Supreme Court struck down a zoning regulation in South Burlington because it was found unconstitutional due to its vagueness. Rich said that the speakers at the conference stressed the importance of removing vagueness in the ordinances in order to avoid being declared unconstitutional.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dina Bookmyer-Baker, Secretary.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, and new member, Parker Nichols. Guests present: DRB member Paul Brierre and Conservation Commission member, Anne Reed. Secretary Dina Bookmyer-Baker was present.

Nancy noted a minor change and moved to accept the April 9 minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded and all were in favor.

Bob asked about the status of the issue of roads separating parcels. Rich said that this was pending a review by the town attorney.

Bob asked about the status of several proposed changes to help clarify the zoning ordinance. He stated he was concerned that items were not added to the last town ballot. Rich and Nancy said that they thought Bob's items had been addressed by the Planning Commission. Rich offered to create a list of the items and the resulting decisions and said they should be added to next year's ballot. All agreed that the items did not warrant consideration through interim zoning.

The Selectboard issued a letter to the Planning Commission responding to the Planning Commission’s dissatisfaction with the Selectboard terminating, without notice, two members who were eligible for renewal. There was a brief discussion of the following:

· Goal: Improve communication and encourage a partnering relationship. Recent discussions with the Selectboard revealed that they were somehow misinformed of, or misinterpreted, the Planning Commission’s activities, motivations, and priorities.

· Suggestion: Provide them earlier access to our minutes. We will include the Selectboard in the email distribution of draft minutes and agendas.

· Suggestion: Solicit their comments early for ordinance revisions. We will submit draft ordinances to the Selectboard for comment when we schedule public review hearings and encourage them to attend our public hearings.

· Suggestion: Hold a joint meeting. Invite the Selectboard to our meeting to review our work plan and priorities. The Planning Commission members would prefer to schedule this meeting in a few months in order to give our two new members the opportunity to participate in a few meetings first.

10.Continue review of draft language regarding subdivision amendments
The Commission continued their review of the proposed subdivision amendments.

· Final Plan Approval—Minor revisions were made for clarity about submissions and public hearing requirements were referenced to a new section.

· Public Hearing Requirements—A new public hearing requirement section was added that paraphrases state statute. It was decided to require 15-day notice for all subdivision hearings. Language was added clarifying that hearings can be recessed for additional information or site visits without new notice so long as next hearing date is announced at the hearing.

· Plan Recording Requirements— The number of days to record was modified as required by state statute. Minor editorial changes were made.

· Subdivision Application Requirements—The Planning Commission requested that the DRB review the subdivision application requirements table and bring any comments to the May 28^th meeting.

The CVRPC examined our village district standards and how they apply to the village. They will report on their findings at the May 14^th meeting. Anne will invite the Village Trustees to join us for this meeting.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the April 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Marshfield Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

7:00 p.m. · Thursday, May 14, 2009 · Old School House Common

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Parker Nichols and Jon Groveman. CVRPC Staff present: Chris Walsh and Dan Currier. Guests present: Tom Daley and Arthur Gilman

Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present.

Chris Walsh and Dan Currier presented the village build-out analysis. They explained the methodology of the analysis, summarized their findings, and presented recommendations. A copy of the report is available from the Planning Commission. They found there was adequate space for at least 36 new homes given the current zoning and when considering pre-defined development constraints. In addition, adequate sewage capacity exists for new development. Using a sample of parcels, the analysis reviewed the existing required lot sizes, road frontage, setbacks, and lot coverage. They found that a significant amount of development did not meet the village zoning requirements. Conclusions included:

§ 30% of sampled lots were under the required 10,000 square foot minimum lot size.

§ 63 % of sampled parcels had less than the required 45-foot front yard setback.

§ 25 % of sampled parcels had less than the required 15-foot side or rear setback for at least one yard.

§ 24 % of sampled parcels had a building coverage that was in excess of 20% maximum lot coverage.

The study recommended a reduction in various Village District requirements in order to allow new development to occur similar to the existing village development patterns. This item will be considered further at future Planning Commission meetings and when updating the Town Plan.

The Commission reviewed a legal opinion from the town attorney regarding parcels spilt by roads and whether a road creates an automatic property boundary. Dan Currier also presented a map and list of all parcels spilt by roads. This item will be discussed further with the Select Board and will be considered when preparing future zoning and subdivision regulations amendments.

Bob reported that the Christ Covenant Church said they were revising their previously approved plan. A new DRB approval will be required. Bob also reported that the Marshfield General Store was being sold to someone who plans to re-open it as a store. No new approvals will be required.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the May 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, and Bob Light. DRB members present: Paul Brierre and Chuck Bohn. Guests present: Tom Daley. Secretary present: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Bob moved to accept the minutes, the motion was seconded, and all were in favor.

· Bob said that Wesley from FEMA followed-up with him to see what the Planning Commission thought of the FEMA materials that she dropped off. Bob told her that we were discussing it at tonight’s meeting and would get back to her. The board discussed the materials. Bob will follow-up with a call to Wesley.

· Bob reviewed the current operations of the Creemee Stand on Route 2 and the requirements to qualify as a home occupation. He said they were currently not in conformance with the regulations and that he has contacted the owner. Several complaints about the operation have been received. Bob is following up with enforcement. No action is required from the Planning Commission.

· Bob discussed a temporary sign proposal for Dolly’s Country Store on Route 2.

Nancy is the newly appointed CVRPC representative and will be reporting on future meetings.

The Planning Commission continued the review of the Subdivision Ordinance procedures.

§ Section 2050, Certificate of Compliance, was amended to read: " The DRB may require certification by an appropriate official that an applicant has met the subdivision requirements and any conditions of approval."

§ Table 2, Subdivision Application Requirements, was accepted as drafted by Rich with a few minor changes.

§ It was agreed to remove the application from the ordinance in order to allow it to be modified in the future administratively.

§ Sections 3020 and 3030 that relate to the required application materials were recommended to stay in the ordinance with minor revisions to match previously discussed changes in procedures.

The Commission briefly discussed the upcoming schedule and agreed that this matter should be discussed in more detail at the next meeting when more members are in attendance.

There being no further business, Bob made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the May 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

The Marshfield Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 11, 2009 was cancelled.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Jon Groveman, and Parker Nichols. DRB members: Paul Brierre. Guests: Tom Daley and Anne Reed. Secretary: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Rich moved to accept the minutes, the motion was seconded, and all were in favor.

· Bob Light commented that the current language regarding temporary structures is vague and that residents are putting up multiple temporary structures right next to each other in order to avoid setbacks. The Planning Commission agreed to discuss alternative language at a later date.

· A question was asked about off-premise signs on Route 2 and Bob said that the state had jurisdiction over these signs.

· Bob provided an update on the Creemee Stand on Route 2 and said the current owners intend to run this only through Labor Day this year.

Nancy attended her first CVRPC meeting, which was a joint meeting with the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). A representative from the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office presented the status of the dwindling state funding sources compared to the rising infrastructure maintenance and repair needs.

The Planning Commission continued the review of the Subdivision Ordinance procedures. The Commission received comments from Bobbi that were also reviewed.

· Section 1040 Waivers, 1.(B), was amended to change “plat” to “plan” and to include section (C) to describe a waiver from procedural requirements.

· Section 1090 Professional Advice, “will” was amended to read, “shall.”

· Article II, Table 1, Subdivision Review At A Glance, was modified for clarity.

· The words “or boundary” were removed from Section 1080, Minor and Major Subdivisions".

· Continued discussions were held regarding the need for Sketch Plan review. All Planning Commission members agreed that, if required, it should be warned. The DRB was asked to provide additional input of whether they wanted to require sketch plan review given the recent discussions of the Planning Commission. This item will be further discussed at the next meeting.

The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, July 13^th at 7:00 p.m. due to conflicts on the regularly scheduled date of July 9^th.

There being no further business, Nancy made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the June 25, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Jon Groveman, Parker Nichols, Bob Light, and Nancy Everhart. Secretary: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Parker moved to accept the minutes with one minor correction by Nancy, the motion was seconded, and all were in favor.

· Bob reported that the Martin Covered Bridge dedication was held on Saturday, June 11^th and recommended everyone visit the site if they have not already.

The Town has received new draft flood plain maps. The State and CVRPC are holding informational meetings on July 27^th and September 16^th and a Planning Commission representative should attend. Bob is planning to go to the meeting in July if he doesn’t have a conflict. Jon will attend as well. Rich agreed to draft the minor zoning amendments required by FEMA.

9. Continued review of draft Subdivision Procedures (Pages 1-16) for use at future Planning Commission public hearing

The Planning Commission continued the review of the Subdivision Ordinance procedures.

· After further discussions, no changes were recommended to the language for replacing the Sketch Plan review with an informal meeting. This decision was based upon the recommendation of the current DRB; they found a required sketch plan review unnecessary; a voluntary informal review is still available to applicants; the sketch plan review delays approvals in cases where the applicant has come prepared with adequate plans; and a required sketch plan review could be re-established at a later date if the need arises.

· Section 1040 Waivers, was edited by adding, “C.” The DRB may waive or modify, subject to appropriate conditions, the submission requirements of these regulations where it finds that such modification or waiver will not nullify the intent or purpose of the regulations and are not in conflict with any state statutes, and provide further that such modification, or waiver, and the reasons therefore, shall be entered upon the minutes of the DRB.”.

· 2040 Plan Recording Requirements (B) was amended to, “Prior to plan recording, the plan must be signed by at least two members of the Development Review Board who voted on the application.”

· The consensus was to remove Table 2 Subdivision Application Requirements and all references to it. It was suggested that such a table would be better suited as an administrative document to be handed out with the application.

· Section 3030, Information Required for Final Plan, needs to be clarified when the mylar is required to be prepared.

This completes the initial review of the Subdivision procedures. Rich and Dina agreed to prepare a draft incorporating all changes to date for review by the Planning Commission. This will then be emailed to the Commission for review. Any final edits will be incorporated and a public hearing will be scheduled for later this year.

The Board agreed that a public hearing would be needed in November on the Subdivision procedure changes, required FEMA amendments, and several minor language changes based upon comments by Bob. Inclusion of other items in the hearing, including possible modifications to road frontage requirements and modifications to subdivision design standards, will depend on how quickly these items can be reviewed and drafted over the next few months.

Some members could not make the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 23^rd. A special meeting was scheduled for July 29^th at 7:00 pm. Rich will check on the availability of the Old School House Common. The meeting will focus on the issue of whether road frontage should be required for new lots.

There being no further business, Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Jon Groveman, Parker Nichols, Bob Light, and Nancy Everhart. Selectboard member: John Warshow. Secretary: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Bob attended the FEMA meeting on the new flood hazard mapping. Rich offered to analyze the digital maps to develop a list of the buildings that are now in the flood hazard area. A local public education outreach is needed to explain any changes in mapping to property owners within the flood hazard area.

Nancy reported that there was a presentation on stream bank geomorphology and effluvial erosion. The state is prioritizing rivers and studying them and looking for projects, such as buying an easement or doing plantings to stabilize riverbanks.

Parker moved to accept the minutes with one minor correction by Nancy, the motion was seconded, and all were in favor.

The Commission had a brainstorming session regarding road frontage requirements. Some of the comments and questions included:

§ We need to consider what we are trying to accomplish with the frontage requirement.

§ The Town Plan is largely silent on the issue, except to establish a goal to preserve the rural character of the area in the Agricultural and Rural Residential district.

§ The frontage requirement does not apply much to the Village district since it is mostly built-out. So we are really talking about how the frontage requirement will affect density in the Agricultural and Rural Residential district.

§ The build-out analysis showed that frontage requirements as established have little affect on controlling growth since lots can be established in the rear with a right-of-way.

§ At the public meeting on the build-out analysis we heard:
—that the residents do not want to see houses lining the streets
—that our zoning laws are unfriendly to families, who want to subdivide off lots for their children
—complaints that our zoning laws do not allow affordable development or affordable housing.

§ Does a house built on a lot behind another lot on the street preserve rural character better than two houses directly fronting on the street?

§ Consideration also needs to be made for more than aesthetics. Development, even that which you don’t see, can and will affect the wildlife habitat, which affects the rural character.

§ Is the development over the last 20 years changing the rural character of Marshfield or are only certain development areas (such as Hollister Hill) losing their rural character?

§ The affect of additional traffic and the resulting impact on the roads needs to be considered.

§ Should pre-defined building zones be required on subdivision plans in order to preserve vegetative strips along roadways or between lots?

§ Should there be ridgeline zoning? Note that most of our ridgeline is in the Forestry and Conservation District.

§ Emergency vehicle access should be kept in mind when subdivisions use a right-of-way for access.

§ Any zoning changes must consider giving additional development rights when other development rights are removed.

The next meeting was scheduled for August 27th. Members were asked to research and consider ideas regarding any changes concerning frontage requirements.

Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the July 29, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Jon Groveman, and Parker Nichols. DRB: Paul Brierre. Secretary: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Rich moved to accept the minutes with one minor correction by Nancy, Parker seconded the motion, and all were in favor.

17.2010 Municipal Planning grant applications on hold due to state budget cuts

Unfortunately, the Municipal Planning grant fund is currently on hold until future notice.

Ned Swanberg, from Vermont River Management Division, provided comments on the changes needed to meet FEMA's latest requirements. Rich drafted the required ordinance changes and reviewed them with the Commission. Rich made a motion to accept the draft and to proceed with a public hearing. Parker seconded the motion, and all were in favor.

Rich will analyze the digital flood maps to develop a list of the buildings that are now in the flood hazard area and compare that to the previous list prepared by Mike Fritz in 2006. He noted that only eight property owners currently get flood insurance even though there are approximately 40 structures in the Flood Hazard District. A public information flyer on the availability of flood insurance was recommended to be sent to all property owners with structures in the Flood Hazard District.

Jon reported that some landowners on Gillman Street have gotten a grant to remove a dam in the Winooski River that is degrading.

An additional informational meeting is being held on the preliminary FEMA maps. A Planning Commission representative should attend.

The Commission continued to discuss subdivision design standards and road frontage. Ideas, comments, and questions included:

§ Do we want to consider requiring screening to hide houses from the public view?

§ Instead of eliminating the use of right of way in lieu of adequate frontage, let’s consider the goals, and what will happen if we do not allow it.

§ What is the wisdom of stopping development at 600’ from the road? One comment was that much of the land past 600 feet is not developable due to ledges, rocks, steep slopes, no road access, etc. and that it also helps preserve large undeveloped tracts.

§ Should a person be allowed to build a small distance within the Forestry and Conservation District when the land along the road is unsuitable or undesirable for development (such as wetland or steep slopes)?

§ Does allowing a large seasonal camp in the Forestry and Conservation District make sense? This is difficult to enforce, and what is the difference between a year-round dwelling and a seasonal camp? Isn’t the impact the same or similar if the camp is the size of a typical house?

§ Consideration needs to be given to emergency vehicles access on long driveways.

§ Should lot averaging be considered (where the size of the parcel determines the total number of lots that can be developed, but the actual lot sizes may vary to what fits best of the parcel)?

§ The ability of the road to handle the traffic can be a legitimate factor to limiting development. Design standards consider safety and ability of the road to handle the traffic, but not necessarily keeping the rural character of a road.

§ Should the number of lots allowed on a parcel be determined by the total available road frontage, regardless if the new lots are access by a right-of-way?

§ Do we want to consider “feature-based” density zoning (where the density is determined by calculations involving development constraints such as wetlands and also positive aspects such as proximity to the village)? Or is this too complicated of a review process?

§ Should we consider ridgeline development or view-shed protection? Does the Forest and Conservation zone adequately protect ridgelines?

§ Should clustering be required where there are large open spaces such as farm fields?

§ Should we consider performance zoning where additional density is allowed for development with certain desirable attributes such as preserving open space or providing affordable housing?

§ Should we consider limiting new curb cuts on state highways or local roads to only so many for a certain distance, thereby forcing the use of shared driveways for new subdivisions?

§ Defining limits of clearing along roads and between lots for new subdivisions could lessen the visual impact of new development.

§ Lots without road frontage and accessed via a right-of-way are not necessarily a problem if proper subdivision design standards are in place.

§ A review of the parcel mapping and developable areas would provide better insight into the likely problems with future subdivisions and may help determine needed changes in the subdivision design standards.

The September 10^th meeting was rescheduled to September 17^th. On September 17^th the Commission will review the draft ordinance changes to be considered at the March Town meeting. Rich will send out drafts before the meeting. A joint meeting with the Select Board will be held before the Planning Commission hearing in order to receive any initial comments. A public hearing is required by December in order to allow time for the Select Board to review the drafts, hold their public hearing and warn the items for a town vote.

Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the August 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, and Parker Nichols. DRB: Paul Brierre. Secretary and DRB: Dina Bookmyer-Baker.

Rich moved to accept the minutes, Nancy seconded the motion, and all were in favor.

Bob asked about the status of determining new properties in the 2009 draft flood hazard zone. Rich said he would work on this soon.

§ The Creeme Stand is closed, will not be re-opened, and that the property is for sale.

§ The Village Store is not going to be re-opened as a new general store soon due to problems with an underground fuel tank.

Nancy reported that the September 8^th CVRPC meeting included a staff presentation on how to use Google SketchUp (see http://sketchup.google.com/ for information). It is a product that you can use to make 3D models from maps or parcel data. For example, from a build-out analysis, you can see, in 3D, what new development would look like in a downtown area. It provides another way to visualize development changes.

A joint meeting with the Selectboard will be held October 8^th. The agenda is to review the proposed revisions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations, so that we can have their initial comments before the public Planning Commission hearing. We will also discuss upcoming 2010 tasks.

All of the changes in the August 28^th version were approved for presentation to the Selectboard on October 8th.

All of the changes in the September 3^rd version were approved for presentation to the Selectboard on October 8th. Paul said he would have his comments by the September 24^th meeting.

Building height: Vertical distance measured from the ~~average~~ lowest elevation of the proposed finished grade ~~at the front of the building~~ to the highest point on the roof.

Front Setback: The distance between the nearest portion of any structure or proposed structure on a lot and the centerline of the public road~~, or the side and rear property lines~~.

Side and Rear Setback: The distance between the nearest portion of any structure or proposed structure on a lot and the side and rear property lines.

The Commission agreed to modify the first paragraph of Section 245, Conditional Uses, to read as follows:

No zoning permit shall be issued by the Administrative officer for any use or structure ~~which~~ that requires a conditional use permit in these Regulations until the Development Review Board grants such approval. In considering this action, the Development Review Board shall make findings on the general and specific standards set forth in the Act, hold hearings and attach conditions as provided for in the Act. 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 Commission discussed Bob's concerns with the ambiguity of the language regarding temporary structures and the required setbacks and the problem with persons placing numerous temporary structures adjacent to one another to avoid the need for a zoning permit. Ideas included: defining setbacks for such structures, limiting the number per lot, requiring a separation between structures and deciding whether the requirements should be for all structures under 100 square feet or just temporary structures. This will be discussed further at the next meeting.

Bob asked the Planning Commission to consider possible regulations of fences over four-feet high.

Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 17, 2009 Planning Commisison meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Parker Nichols and Jon Groveman. DRB: Paul Brierre. Secretary and DRB: Dina Bookmyer-Baker. Guests: Will Walters (Hardwick Gazette)

Nancy moved to accept the minutes, Rich seconded the motion, and all were in favor.

Bob reported that he issued a Notice of Violation to the excavation operations on Laird Pond Road under Section 366. Bob asked for the Planning Commission interpretation of this section. The Commission was in consensus that site plan approval was required only when 1,000 yards of earth materials are moved (which could all be on site) and if the contours are modified. Rich also suggested Bob contact the State to see if they obtained a general construction permit (which is required when over one acre of land is disturbed).

Rich reported that there appears to be some additional structures in the Flood Hazard District based upon the 2009 draft FEMA maps, but that he needs to compare the digital maps to the paper maps. Flood insurance will be less expensive for property owners to obtain now than later if the new maps result in their property switching from the X zone (not within Flood Hazard District) to an A zone (within Flood Hazard District). Our discussions with the Select Board will include the idea of sending a letter to these property owners.

The Commission continued their discussion of the requirements for modifications of the temporary structure regulations as requested by Bob. The following changes were recommended for drafting:

A zoning permit is also not required for any structures up to 100 square feet in size and not more than 15-feet in height with the following limitations:

§ The allowed number of such exempt structures is determined by dividing the required district lot size by the size of the parcel, rounded to the closet whole number. In no case shall the number of exempt structures exceed three.

§ The exempt structure(s) shall not be placed within the required front yard setback or in front of the principal structure on the lot, which ever is the least restrictive.

§ The exempt structures(s) shall not be within 10 feet of a side or rear lot line.

Any additional structures under 100 square-feet, other than permitted above, shall obtain a zoning permit and be required to meet the regular district setbacks.

The Commission continued their discussion of the requirements for review of certain fences as requested by Bob. The following changes were recommended for drafting:

All fences over four in height, within the required district setbacks and not transparent, are required to obtained site plan approval. All other fences are exempt from zoning review.

Rich will draft changes for review by Commission. Some members questioned if this additional regulation is needed or is too stringent. Comments will be obtained from the Select Board on this proposed change.

Bob asked the Commission to review the need to change Section 225, Item 4 which requires a permit for "the reconstruction of any building, structure, man‑made pond accessory building or other use, unless it is on the same building footprint and for the same use as a building or use that already existed on the site;"

Rich is stepping down as Chair by year’s end. Dina can no longer serve as Secretary due to other evening meeting commitments associated with her new job as the East Montpelier Zoning Administrator. The Commission agreed to discuss the role of the secretary with the Select Board to add clarity as to intent of providing funding for this position.

Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the September 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Parker Nichols and Jon Groveman. DRB: Paul Brierre. Select Board: John Warshow, Chris Martin, and Laura Johnson. Town Clerk: Bobbi Brimblecombe. Guests present: Tom Daley, Mike Fritz, Will Walters (Hardwick Gazette).

1. Review of proposed changes in Flood Hazard District regulations required by FEMA

Rich explained that the flood hazard regulations must be slightly modified to meet certain FEMA requirements in order for the town residents to be eligible to obtain FEMA flood insurance. The Flood Hazard regulations adopted at the 2009 Town Meeting met the 2007 FEMA requirements. FEMA made some additional changes in their requirements in 2008. The state flood management staff brought these additional changes to our attention too late to be included in the 2009 vote.

The additional required changes were reviewed with the Select Board. Bobbi noted a requirement regarding recording conflicted with recording laws. Rich said he would check with the state staff on this item. Bobbi noted a few typos errors. No substantial changes were recommended by the Select Board.

2. Changes in flood status of properties and proposed letter to residents notifying them of change

Rich said he did a detailed map analysis regarding changes in the flood status of buildings from the old paper maps to the new draft digitized maps. Many of the changes were due to the new maps being more accurate than the old maps as opposed to actual changes in the areas likely to be flooded. His analysis found that there appears to be 20 structures that are in the 2009 draft flood hazard zone, but were not in the flood hazard zone on the paper map; 29 structures that were in the flood hazard map on the paper maps, but are not in the 2009 draft flood hazard zone; and 35 structures that were on both maps. He explained that some structures may be in the flood hazard zone, but elevated above the base flood level and, therefore, would not be required to have flood insurance to secure a mortgage loan. He also explained that some structures at the edge of the flood zone may actually be out of the flood zone given more detailed survey work. He explained the FEMA process to be declared out of the flood zone.

Structures that will be in the 2009 flood zone, but not previously considered within the flood zone will be able to get less expensive flood insurance if they obtain it before the draft maps are adopted by FEMA in September 2010. It was recommended a letter be sent to these property owners explaining the change. The Select Board recommended the letter come from them, but be drafted by the Commission. It was also recommended that all owners with structures in the flood zone be notified. Last, it was recommended that a meeting be held to discuss flood insurance options with owners. Rich said he would check to see if staff from the Vermont River Management Division would be able to attend such a meeting to explain the insurance options.

Rich explained that the proposed changes in procedures were initiated by a request from the Development Review Board. The proposed changes were reviewed with the Select Board. The focus of the discussion mostly regarded whether sketch plan review should be required or whether, instead, an informal informational meeting should be available if the applicant is interested. The Development Review Board has recommended the informational meeting. Tom Daley pointed out reasons he would recommend keeping the current requirements for sketch plan review. A discussion of the pros and cons occurred. The Select Board suggested that curb cuts, access management and stormwater be considered with subdivision review. Rich said these items will be addressed in the design standards that are currently being reviewed. The Planning Commission will review the comments presented and decide if to keep the existing language for the public hearing. Bobbi asked to further review some technical requirements with the Commission or with an individual member. The Commission will invite Bobbi to review her comments are the next meeting.

4. Review of proposed changes in definitions for building height and setbacks, requirement for conditional use review, modifications of requirements for temporary structures and addition of site plan review for certain fences

Rich explained that certain changes were being requested by Bob Light for clarification of the ordinance and to address certain complaints he has had. The Commission reviewed the proposed changes. The revised height and setback definitions were reviewed. The Select Board suggested some consideration be given to allow steeples, cupolas, and similar items to exceed the current height restriction.

A requirement to establish conditional use review for existing businesses changing to a new business was reviewed. Discussion took place as to when conditional use would be required. The Select Board did not recommend any specific changes.

A requirement to limit the number and location of structures under 100 square feet was reviewed. The Select Board did not recommend any specific changes.

A requirement to require site plan review for certain fences was reviewed. Discussion took place as to if the proposed regulation is needed or is too restrictive. The Select Board did not recommend any specific changes.

The Select Board discussed their intent in providing a $50 payment per meeting for secretarial services.

The Commission said their focus was now be directed towards subdivision design standards. They also noted that the Town Plan needed to be updated by January 2011.

The public hearing was set for November 12^th. The Commission will make any minor edits to the draft ordinances at the October 22^nd meeting. The consensus was not to make any substantial changes before the hearing. The goal will be to have the recommended draft ordinances to the Select Board by mid-November.

Rich made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded, and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the October 8, 2009 Planning Commisison meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Parker Nichols Members absent: Jon Groveman. Town Clerk: Bobbi Brimblecombe (for item #1 only). Guests present: Will Walters (Hardwick Gazette).

Bobbi made several suggestions for edits to clarify certain portions of the subdivision procedure draft ordinance. All were accepted. The draft flood hazard amendment ordinance, "Variances to Development Standards", Item 3 was amended to read: "A copy of such variance shall be recorded in the land records of the town in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4464(3)." The new language eliminates the conflict between the state model ordinance and state recording requirements. Bobbi suggested changes and clarification for the prodedures used by persons applying for DRB approval. The Commission found that the suggestions were not required to be in the ordinance and were more administrative in nature. It was suggested that it would be more appropriate for these suggestions to be discussed with the DRB.

The minutes of 9/24/09 and 10/8/09 were approved as drafted. A motion was made to elect Rich as Planning Commission Clerk effective 10/8/09. Motion was approved unanimously.

Bob had no news to report. Rich asked about the enforcement of the current sign regulations and limitations on the number of signs at retail stores. Bob explained the history of sign enforcement. Rich suggested that the Commission might want to review the sign regulations at a later date.

Rich said that a representative from the Vermont Flood Management Division would be willing to come to an informational meeting for residents to discuss flood insurance options as they pertain to the new FEMA maps to be adopted September 2010. It was suggested that the meeting be held in February during a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

The consensus of the Commission was to ask the Select Board to continue to provide $50 per meeting for a Planning Commission Clerk to take minutes and track document changes. No other budget items pertain to the Planning Commission.

6. Discussion of any final edits to proposed ordinances based upon Select Board comments and review with Bobbi

The Commission reviewed the Select Board comments from the October 8th meeting. The following was added to the end of the section regarding conditional uses to add clarification when new accessory uses require conditional use review: "The addition or change of accessory uses traditionally found within a particular business operation is not a considered a change from one business operation to another unless it substantially changes the nature of the business. The Administrative Officer shall make the determination whether there is a change in business operation or a change in accessory uses requiring conditional use review."

The Commission agreed with one Select Board member's comment that steeples and similar structures should have some exemption for the maximum height requirements. The draft ordinance was amended by the addition of the following note after the Village Residential District regulations and Agricultural and Rural Residential District regulations: "**Unoccupied building area not greater than 500 square-feet in size and not greater than 15 feet above the height of the building (for example steeples, bell towers, and cupolas) are exempt from the maximum building height requirement."

The drafts ordinances with the amendments noted above and Bobbi's comments were accepted as the ordinances to be warned for the November 12^th hearing.

November 12^th –- Public hearing and discussion of changes recommended based upon comments received. An additional November meeting will only be held if final draft ordinances cannot be completed November 12^th.

November 17^th –- Presentation of ordinances to Select Board –- Nancy will check to see if she can attend the Select Board meeting. Rich said he has a work conflict and could not attend.

December 3rd –- Continuation of subdivision design amendments. Rich said he would have examples of design standards from other towns to site building zones to be less visible and to help preserve rural character. Nancy said she would review neighboring town ordinances.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the October 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, Bob Light, Parker Nichols, Jon Groveman. Members absent: None. Select Board Present: Chris Martin. DRB Present: Dina Bookmyer-Baker and Paul Brierre Guests present: Will Walters (Hardwick Gazette), Doug and Melanie Duprey.

No public comments were made on the proposed draft. Ned Swanberg from the Vermont River Management Division has reviewed the ordinance and has found that it is complaint with the required FEMA requirements. Testimony on the Flood Hazard Amendments was closed.

No public comments were made on the proposed draft at the hearing. A letter from Tom Daley dated 10/29/09 to the Select Board regarding his concerns with making sketch plan review optional for an applicant was discussed. Tom’s letter was reviewed by the DRB and they recommended leaving the ordinance as drafted by the Planning Commission. Testimony on the Subdivision Procedures Amendments was closed.

Doug Duprey asked about the revision concerning requiring conditional use review for commercial uses that have never had conditional use review. The reasons for the proposed requirement were reviewed.

Doug then had several comments about the proposed Section 225 regulations pertaining to buildings under 100 square feet. First, he proposed that the regulations refer to buildings, not structures, since structures such as a fence or sign do not apply. Second, he recommended some minor clarification edits. Third, he requested that the number of exempt buildings not requiring a permit include more than three. Last, he asked whether agricultural buildings would count. Dina Bookmyer-Baker recommended that agricultural buildings count.

Doug then recommended that the criteria for site plan review of certain fences in Section 391 be amended. He recommended changing the proposed fence height requiring review and changing the setback criteria for fence review. Chris Martin suggested that the setback criteria relate to the fence height.

The Planning Commission reviewed the comments received. No changes were made to the Flood Hazard and Subdivision Procedures Ordinances. The following changes were made to the Clarification and Minor Amendments Ordinance:

· Changed the definition of temporary structure to temporary building in Section 180 since it is used to refer to buildings

· Revised agricultural uses definition in Section 180 to refer to the state definition.

· Replaced the word “building” for “structure” in Section 225 discussing buildings under 100 square feet since it is not intended to apply to structures that are not buildings (such as a fence or sign).

· Modified Section 391 criteria for site plan review of fences to “fences over five in height, within 15 feet of a property line, and not transparent.”

Jon moved to recommend forwarding the proposed ordinances to the Select Board as amended. Motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

Bob reported that the Village Store was sold at a foreclosure action to the owners of Tim’s Convenience Store.

Nancy reported that the last CVRPC was on the Farm to Table Initiatives and Food Sustainability in Central Vermont and was quite interesting.

The DRB has requested to meet on the second Thursday of the month instead of the first Thursday in order for Dina Bookmyer-Baker to continue to serve on the DRB. Dina has a scheduling conflict on the first Thursday. This requires the Planning Commission to switch to the first and third Thursdays. No members had conflicts with this change and agreed to the new schedule. Rich will notify Bobbi Brimblecombe.

November 17^th –- Presentation of ordinances to Select Board –- Chris said he did not think a Planning Commission member needed to attend since the changes after the review with the Select Board are minor and since he was in attendance tonight. Nancy offered to come if needed.

December 3^rd –- Discussion of 2010 tasks and continuation of subdivision design amendments. Rich said he has prepared an initial draft based upon comments received. It is based upon design standards from other towns that address preserving rural character. It also includes some basic design standards that are lacking in the current Subdivision Ordinance. Parker said he would not be available for any meetings in December. It was decided to only hold one meeting in December.

The foregoing is a true copy of the minutes of the November 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Members present: Rich Baker, Nancy Everhart, and Jon Groveman. Members absent: Bob Light and Parker Nichols. Guests present: None.

Bob was not present to report. The members briefly discussed a letter from Rebecca Pfeiffer of the Vermont River Management Program dated October 16, 2009 to Bob Light regarding her Community Assistance Visit with Bob on August 26, 2009. Except for the ordinance update (which has been forwarded to the Select Board for a hearing and town vote), the letter addressed possible Flood Hazard Zone violations. The members thought these were enforcement issues under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Administrator and did not involve the Planning Commission. This item will be placed on the next agenda for further discussions with Bob.

Nancy was unavailable to attend the most recent CVRPC meeting. Nancy indicated she might resign as the Marshfield CVRPC representative. Jon indicated he would be willing to be the new representative. Nancy and Jon will coordinate with the Select Board on this matter since this is a Select Board appointment.

The Select Board amended the technical and minor edits draft ordinance by allowing the additional height for steeples and bell towers to be 25 feet higher than the normal maximum building height. The Flood Hazard draft ordinance and Subdivision Procedures draft ordinance were accepted as prepared by the Planning Commission. The Select Board is holding a hearing on December 29^th on the proposed amended draft ordinances. Jon and Rich plan to attend the hearing. Any substantial changes made after the hearing will require an additional hearing. All draft ordinances are proposed to be on the March Town Meeting ballot.

The members discussed the need to update the Town Plan and the need to consider amendments to the Subdivision design standards. It was decided to focus efforts on these two tasks and to not consider any other tasks in 2010 if possible. Furthermore, it was decided to wait a few months to further discuss the Subdivision design standard changes in order for members to review the existing Town Plan to better understand how design standards relate to the Town Plan. January and February will be dedicated to reviewing the Town Plan and developing an approach to completing the plan update.

It was agreed to approve minutes by email so that they can be sent to Field Notes sooner. Members asked for one week to review draft minutes.

January 7^th and 21^st –- Review Town Plan and develop approach to completing update

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