Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CCRPC advisory committee recommends Charlotte town plan with required edits; planning commission to proceed to CCRPC Board
Summary
CCRPC staff found Charlotte’s 2026 town plan largely consistent with statutory goals but noted one required edit (add 2018 regional plan reference); the Planning Advisory Committee recommended regional approval contingent on those edits. The committee discussed a concurrent zoning vote and recorded two abstentions on the motion.
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s Planning Advisory Committee voted December 17 to recommend that the CCRPC Board grant regional approval, confirm the planning process, and determine energy compliance for the 2026 Charlotte Town Plan, pending required edits.
CCRPC planner Kate McCarthy told the committee staff concluded the plan generally meets statutory general and specific goals and contains the required plan elements, though staff identified one required edit: the plan must discuss the 2018 regional plan in addition to the 2026 regional plan. McCarthy also reviewed optional edits suggested in the staff memo, such as clearer actions to address misalignment with regulations, stronger discussion of regional forest blocks, and a prioritization of infrastructure actions.
The committee opened a public hearing; no comments were provided. Committee members and the town planner, Lindsay Kahn, discussed a persistent disconnect between the town’s plan language and its zoning regulations. Kahn said the town will simultaneously warn a voter article at Town Meeting on a proposed change to the Village Commercial zoning district. She explained the current zoning requires 5‑acre residential lots and 1‑acre commercial lots; the proposed change would allow 1‑acre residential lots if developed as mixed‑use with commercial uses, while leaving the base zoning otherwise unchanged.
Committee chair Paul Conner suggested strengthening the plan’s housing policy; he specifically cited the plan wording, “Development in the Village district should be encouraged,” and said the statement could be made stronger to acknowledge historic tensions and present clearer implementation steps. Conner and other members discussed that implementation resistance often arises at the voter level rather than at the Planning Commission.
Chris Shaw moved the recommendation to the board; Charles Dillard seconded. According to the minutes, Linden (Lindsay) Kahn and Keith Oborne were recorded as abstaining. The motion was recorded as passing; the transcript does not include a roll‑call or numeric yes/no tally for the vote.
CCRPC staff noted the committee’s recommendation will go to the CCRPC Board for final action after local approval of the municipal plan.
