Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rutland planning commission says subdivision ordinance rewrite is a lengthy, detailed task; subcommittee to recommend next steps
Summary
The Rutland Town Planning Commission reported slow, detailed progress updating the subdivision ordinance, flagged gaps between the ordinance and the town plan, and said the commission must decide whether staff should draft remaining language or the commission will continue line-by-line revisions.
The Rutland Town Planning Commission on Feb. 13 said updating the town’s subdivision ordinance is moving forward but will take months of detailed work, and the commission must decide how to proceed.
Commission members briefed the full commission on work by a small subcommittee that has been reviewing the existing ordinance and a draft that incorporates feedback from the town’s reviewer, Kevin. The subcommittee reported it has completed multiple sections but encountered many questions and areas that need commission-level decisions, especially in Section 4.01.
The commission said about 40% of items identified for Section 4.01 did not appear in the current town plan when compared to Kevin’s statutory checklist, so the commission must decide whether to (a) add cross-references or standards to the town plan, (b) include the standards directly in the ordinance, or (c) ask Kevin to draft clarified language for commission review. Commissioners said the subcommittee will compile the list of issues and either present that list for commission action or send it back to Kevin for redrafting.
Commission members described the work as time-consuming and “heavy lifting,” noting the subgroup spent more than an hour on a single subsection and that some sections may require months more. The commissioners also discussed presentation options so the full commission can review proposed changes without being bogged down by markup that shows both additions and deletions.
The commission discussed statutory references raised by Kevin in his review. Commissioners said Kevin cited statutory requirements governing subdivision bylaws (transcript reference to “Section 44.181 b” and other 24 VSA citations), and that if the municipal plan lacks specific standards the statute anticipates, the commission must decide whether to incorporate those standards into the plan or the ordinance.
Next steps: subcommittee meetings will continue (subcommittee expected to meet again Feb. 27) and the commission expects to schedule a discussion with the full commission at a future meeting (possible March meeting dates were discussed). The subcommittee will try to distill the outstanding questions for the full commission or recommend that staff/consultant Kevin produce a revised draft for the commission’s review.
The commission emphasized it will not have a concisely finished document for the select board in the immediate term; members said completion will take additional months, depending on the approach the commission chooses.
