The Town of Rutland Planning Commission reviewed sections 1 through 5 of a proposed river corridor ordinance and agreed to continue the review at a future meeting after clarifying definitions, abbreviations and administrative procedures.

Commission members asked that the ordinance place definitions and abbreviation explanations at the front of the document (rather than at the end) so readers and staff can find them without paging back and forth. Members also urged consistent use of abbreviations and suggested either defining each abbreviation where used or providing a single definitions section up front.

The commission discussed how the administrative officer (AO) would administer the bylaw, noting that the proposed text requires the AO to inspect development, maintain records and enforce the bylaw but does not explicitly state how proactive inspections would be triggered in the absence of a permitting system. Commissioners pointed to the town's current building‑permit thresholds (noting building permits are required for structures over 100 square feet) and to the existing Moon Brook watershed process as a model for complaint‑driven and permit‑triggered review.

Members also raised concerns about the Board of Adjustment's composition: statute allows the select board to appoint a board of adjustment or to use the planning commission, but one commissioner urged that the planning commission should not constitute a majority of the Board of Adjustment to avoid any appearance of partiality when appeals concern planning commission decisions.

The commission asked staff to circulate written comments (including a list of specific questions on figures, the ‘‘gap’’/infill rules, base flood elevation responsibilities and what the model language means in simple terms) to the ordinance drafter before the next meeting. The commission scheduled review of sections 6 and 7, and asked staff to prepare definitions for discussion at the next session.