The Town of Rutland Planning Commission on Oct. 2 closed a public hearing on a proposed boundary line adjustment that would transfer a roughly 2.68-acre piece (Parcel 2B) from lands owned by Carol Baird to an adjacent parcel held in the name of Francis Levins, and voted to withhold final approval until the applicant submits a clearer plat showing parcel acreages and a descriptive dialogue box.

Commissioners said the hearing mattered because the documents in the current submission contained inconsistent acreage figures and did not clearly show the final, post-adjustment parcel that would be created by combining the hatched areas on the survey. Without a clear plat and matching letter, they said, the public record would be ambiguous about what is being conveyed and what remains separate.

At the hearing the applicant’s representative presented a new map prepared by Mark Purcell of Purcell Surveying and noted the parcels’ relationship to East Creek and McKinley Avenue. Planning commissioners and some attendees pointed to mismatches between the map and a cover letter: the Levins parcel has been described in different documents as about 13.4 acres, 14.4 acres and other values, while Parcel 2B is repeatedly noted as roughly 2.68 acres and the adjoining park/Parcel 2A as about 5.12 acres. Commissioners said those differences prevent straightforward verification of the resulting total acreage once the 2.68-acre transfer is recorded.

Commissioners discussed the fact that Parcel 2A (5.12 acres) had recently been listed for sale and asked whether marketing the property before final town approvals was appropriate. The applicant’s representative said a real estate agent had told prospective buyers about the pending planning-board hearing but that no contract had been or could be finalized until the boundary-line adjustment process was complete.

After questions about how the survey shows conveyed lines and how the final parcel will appear once conveyances are recorded, commissioners asked the surveyor to show a clearer notation: a descriptive dialogue box on the plat that (1) identifies the existing Levins parcel by the deed/record already on file, (2) lists the acreage that will be added from Parcel 2B (2.68 acres), and (3) gives the resulting total acreage for the consolidated parcel. Commissioners also asked that each parcel be labeled and that the acreage appear on the plat itself (not only in a margin box) so future reviewers will not misinterpret the hatch marks or the insert map.

Planning Commission members debated whether to grant approval contingent on the text box changes or to require a revised plat to be returned. Some members said they try to avoid contingent approvals because required changes are sometimes omitted. The commission ultimately voted to withhold final approval and asked the applicant to return with the revised plat and corrected letter at the commission’s next hearing (Oct. 23). The commission assigned Bill (Planning staff) to work with the applicant and surveyor to deliver a marked-up example of how the dialogue box and labels should appear.

The hearing record shows repeated references to prior filings and a earlier conveyance of the Levins parcel (a recorded mylar cited by the applicant as the source for previous acreage figures). Commissioners asked for cross-references to that recorded instrument in the revised submission so the town can verify the arithmetic and the legal descriptions before recording a new instrument.

What happens next: The commission closed the hearing and will expect the applicant to submit a revised plat that 1) contains a dialogue box describing how parcels 2A and 2B will be combined, 2) shows parcel labels and acreages on the plat, and 3) provides corrected acreage figures in a revised cover letter. The applicant has been asked to return at the Oct. 23 Planning Commission hearing with those materials.

Speakers quoted or cited in this article are drawn from the hearing record and are limited to the following participants and how they were identified at the meeting.