Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Review Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CCRPC committee debates adding guidance on compatibility in revised municipal plan review standards
Summary
CCRPC staff presented proposed updates to municipal plan review Guidelines and Standards and the committee discussed whether the standards should provide clearer guidance on how local future land use maps must demonstrate compatibility with the regional map; staff will revise Appendix B and return to PAC.
Taylor Newton presented proposed revisions to CCRPC’s municipal plan review Guidelines and Standards at the Oct. 8 Planning Advisory Committee meeting, describing updates to plan confirmation, approval, and compliance determinations and a new initial plan review template to be shared with PAC in November.
Newton framed a central question for the PAC: "As we enter into a phase where the future land use maps carry a different weight, should the CCRPC plan standards provide more guidance about how to assure compatibility?" Committee members discussed the tradeoffs between prescribing a process for map changes and asking municipalities to make a case that local plan changes advance state planning goals.
Why it matters: the regional future land use map informs Act 250 tiers and municipal housing targets. Newton and staff said recent changes to the regional map between March and August 2025 shifted municipal housing targets in some places — for example, Williston’s target increased by 354 units — and that municipal housing targets will be finalized after the regional map is settled in early 2026.
Discussion touched on options for handling discrepancies between local and regional designations. Chris Shaheen described a Jericho example where a locally proposed "village" designation differs from the regional "transition" classification; he said local planning work underway may take time to align with regional definitions and that clearer RPC guidance would be helpful. Paul Conner said municipalities should explain how local visions advance state planning goals rather than relying on rigid triggers baked into the Guidelines.
The committee also discussed plan confirmation and how staff would assess whether municipalities have been "actively implementing" their plans, noting limited statutory guidance about what active implementation entails. Darren Schibler recommended Appendix B include more pointed questions about actions municipalities took to support housing targets; staff said they would update Appendix B and return to PAC for further review.
Process and timeline: Newton said the RPC hopes to request pre-application review with the Land Use Review Board and warn the first public hearing as part of the next steps. PAC did not adopt final language at this meeting and will revisit the Guidelines and Standards in November; staff expect to present a recommendation to the CCRPC Board in early 2026.
What’s next: staff will revise Appendix B to add targeted questions about housing-related implementation, clarify guidance on compatibility as directed by PAC feedback, and return with revised materials for PAC review.
