Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Corridor Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rutland planning commission reviews draft river‑corridor ordinance; members request clearer FEMA references and simpler language
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a revised river‑corridor ordinance draft (yellow highlights showing edits) and raised questions about terminology (DFE), FEMA zone definitions (AO), the $500 maintenance threshold, use of Board of Adjustment in place of a development review board, and the need for public‑facing explanations; no vote was taken.
The Rutland Town Planning Commission reviewed a revised draft of a river‑corridor ordinance during its March 6, 2025 meeting and identified several areas that need clarification before the town advances the draft. Commissioners did not take formal action; staff will seek answers to technical questions and bring revisions back to the commission at a later meeting.
Planner Barbara (presenting the draft) said she had inserted edits (marked in yellow) reflecting prior discussion, including a definition for “functionally dependent uses,” substitution of “Board of Adjustment” for “development review board” in multiple places, and additional development standards related to flood hazard areas. She asked commissioners to note the yellow highlights and return suggested changes for the next review.
Commissioners and staff focused on a handful of recurring issues: spelling out acronyms and where the definitions live; clarity on the DFE (design flood elevation) and a recommendation that the first occurrence of the acronym be spelled out; clearer reference to FEMA mapping and the AO zone (commissioners asked that a reference or link to FEMA’s current maps be added so landowners can confirm which zones apply); and a contested $500 threshold in an exemption for “interior improvements and repairs” (multiple members said $500 feels arbitrarily low and suggested triggering exemptions by scope—e.g., no change in square footage or occupancy—rather than a fixed dollar amount).
Commissioners also discussed technical requirements for structures in flood hazard areas. The draft requires fuel storage tanks and some storage facilities to meet elevations relative to the DFE; it also incorporates FEMA language that requires openings or engineered designs that “automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces” for enclosed areas below the DFE. Several commissioners asked that the ordinance include a plain‑language example (for instance: an exterior wall opening must be large enough to allow floodwater to enter and exit so hydrostatic pressure does not destroy the structure) and that any requirement for technical certification be clearly tied to engineer review.
Other drafting items raised included the placement of the definitions (several members recommended a table of contents or a pointer to the definition page so readers can find acronyms and defined terms quickly), consistent acronym presentation (commissioner Sherman suggested putting the acronym up front followed by the expansion in parentheses where helpful), and whether some references (for example, the Moon Brook stormwater/MS4 material) should remain in this ordinance. Staff said they will forward the group’s questions to Kyle (legal/peer reviewer) and get specific citation checks before returning an updated draft.
No vote was taken. Commissioners agreed to continue work, with staff to return answers on citations, FEMA/DEC questions, and suggested plain‑language clarifications at a future meeting.
