Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Plan Lurb topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rutland RPC defends regional plan mapping after Land Use Review Board site visits; public comments due
Summary
The Rutland Regional Planning Commission described a week of Land Use Review Board site visits and a pre-application hearing tied to its regional plan, saying state reviewers questioned how the commission mapped village and planned-growth areas. The RPC urged towns to submit written comments before the deadline and outlined next steps.
Devin Newry, executive director of the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, told the commission on Oct. 21 that the regional plan team held site visits and a Land Use Review Board (LURB) pre‑application hearing last week and received detailed, at times critical, feedback on the commission’s future land use map.
Newry said the commission rented a bus and organized four site stops — in Poultney, Castleton, West Rutland and Killington — so LURB members could view mapped areas on the ground and hear from municipal representatives. He described extensive preparatory materials, including 40‑page site packets for each visit meant to explain how the RPC had identified village, planned growth and downtown areas.
The commission said LURB members repeatedly questioned the RPC’s mapping of “village area” designations that surround denser downtown zones. "They believe that village areas are not intended to be mapped around planned growth areas," Newry said, while also noting the RPC found no statutory prohibition on such mapping and had used village, planned growth and downtown designations as “rings of intensity.”
RPC members who attended the site visits and the pre‑application hearing told the commission that LURB showed particular interest in the RPC’s housing targets, natural‑resource mapping (including highest‑priority forest blocks and habitat connectors), utility mapping and the policy language of the draft regional plan. Public comment at the hearing, Newry said, included both praise for the RPC’s outreach and concerns that the regional plan and future land use map carry regulatory weight that could affect development in towns.
Newry and other RPC members encouraged towns and residents to submit formal written comments: he said a deadline mentioned at the hearing closes “tomorrow at 11:59 p.m.” and that the LURB must return consolidated comments to the RPC by Nov. 21. The RPC plans a public hearing on the regional plan in January, and Newry said staff would “warn” or post notice for a Dec. 20 date while the commission works to incorporate or respond to LURB comments beforehand.
RPC staff said the LURB has discretion on whether site‑visit remarks are part of the formal record; RPC legal counsel and LURB counsel decided that site visits themselves were informational and not automatically part of the written record, though LURB recited notable site‑visit observations into the public hearing record to preserve them.
Commission members who attended the site visits said the packets, on‑site presentations by municipal leaders and follow‑up written testimony helped convey local planning, utility and sidewalk investments that inform the mapping. Several commissioners urged colleagues and towns to provide written comments that emphasize local context and the engagement process the RPC used.
The RPC plans to post the LURB site packets and its presentation on the regional plan website and to share LURB comments with commissioners as they arrive.
The discussion produced no final vote; RPC members framed the item as an update and next steps in a multi‑stage state review and public hearing process.
