Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rutland planning panel advances draft subdivision review; recommends replacing “sketch plan” with “preliminary plat”
Summary
Members of the Town of Rutland Planning Commission discussed revisions to the draft subdivision regulations, including a plan to identify local "cultural features," a recommended change from "sketch plan" to "preliminary plat," and cross-references to the municipal plan and state statute.
The Town of Rutland Planning Commission discussed final edits to its draft subdivision regulations on March 27, focusing on defining and protecting local cultural features and standardizing application materials.
Commission member Bill (last name not specified) said the subcommittee has completed Section 4 of the draft and has begun Section 2, and recommended that the commission adopt a cultural-features map and cross-reference any language in the subdivision regulations with the municipal plan and state statute.
The discussion centered on which places should qualify as cultural features. Planning Commission member Norman (last name not specified) said, “cultural features can be buildings, structures, places of worship, cemeteries,” and mentioned local examples including the Polo fields, the railroad museum and Pine Hill Park. He added that the water tower on North Main Street could be considered a cultural feature because it has been in place for a long time.
Commissioners said such a list would not automatically prohibit subdivision of those areas but would require the planning commission to take the features into consideration when reviewing applications. Planning Commission member Bill noted that state statute requires subdivision regulations to address these factors and gives municipalities latitude to regulate how subdivisions affect cultural resources.
On terminology, the subcommittee recommended changing the application stage label from “sketch plan” to “preliminary plat.” The subcommittee’s stated reason: “a sketch plan is very ambiguous,” while a preliminary plat establishes consistent submission expectations and supporting information that will allow staff and commissioners to ask probing questions. The commission discussed equity concerns; one member said the requirement for a preliminary plat could impose costs on applicants who may not be ready to pay for a surveyor or plat preparation.
Members said they are coordinating with the town attorney, Kevin Brown, to align the draft with state statutory language and with sections of the municipal plan. The group flagged a limited number of places where the municipal plan lacks wording the attorney recommended; members estimated amending the municipal plan to add the required language could be as small as “about a half dozen words,” but cautioned that municipality plan updates and subdivision regulation changes could create recurring cross-reference work.
No formal vote was taken on the draft language at this meeting. Commissioners said the subcommittee will meet again after hearing advice from the town attorney; the commission also discussed possibly meeting in executive session to receive attorney advice.
Looking ahead, the subcommittee intends to prepare a marked-up document referencing Kevin Brown’s prior letter and the earlier clean draft so full commissioners can review suggested changes without re-reading multiple supporting documents.
