Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
CCRPC PAC delays ECOS plan to 2024 to allow equity committee review; members press staff on energy constraints and data timing
Summary
CCRPC staff told the Planning Advisory Committee the ECOS plan adoption will move from spring 2023 to 2024 to allow input from a new Equity Advisory Committee, creating a misalignment with the MTP and CEDS; PAC members debated transit‑oriented development boundaries, density targets and whether removing local constraints would weaken §248 filings.
Taylor Newton, Planning Program Manager for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, told the Planning Advisory Committee on Nov. 9 that adoption of the ECOS Plan will be delayed from spring 2023 to 2024 so the newly formed Equity Advisory Committee (EAC) can provide input.
The schedule change will misalign the ECOS adoption with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), Newton said, and CCRPC staff will not hold a December PAC meeting; the PAC will review the MTP at its January meeting.
Why it matters: PAC members said the delay gives the EAC time to review equity issues across planning products but will alter timing for related regional plans tied to transportation and federal funding. The misalignment could affect how policies and project priorities are coordinated across documents scheduled for adoption in early 2023.
PAC discussion centered on several ECOS workstreams. Melanie Needle, Senior Planner, reviewed changes to the ECOS Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District, and members debated whether the overlay should be defined around bus stops or aligned with village planning areas. Meagan Tuttle, PAC member from Burlington, questioned how the TOD purpose statement’s residential density recommendation — currently described in the draft as a minimum of five units per acre — compares with other growth-area designations and whether the purpose statement should specify a number or be context‑sensitive. PAC members suggested higher density targets within Metro areas and context‑specific language for Village areas.
Members also flagged geographic anomalies in the overlay: Paul Conner (South Burlington) and others noted some Center planning areas fall outside the proposed TOD boundary and urged staff to correct those mismatches. Ravi Venkataraman (Richmond) and Eric Vorwald (Winooski) discussed whether the Richmond Park and Ride should be included given it is remote from the walkable village center and lacks water and sewer service.
On energy siting, Needle said CCRPC staff removed “possible constraints” that were not natural-resource related from local constraints lists to keep constraints consistent across development types; she said staff relied on siting policies in ECOS to guide decisions. PAC members, including Tuttle, expressed concern that removing certain local constraints could reduce municipalities’ influence or legal standing in Public Utility Commission (§248) proceedings. Taylor Newton clarified CCRPC’s approach to Act 250 and §248 reviews: CCRPC typically does not reexamine local zoning-level constraints in Act 250 reviews because zoning covers those issues, but CCRPC does review and comment on local constraints in correspondence during Section 248 reviews because §248 does not include local zoning review.
On data, Needle said the Vermont Department of Public Service had not supplied a timeline for release of LEAP data to regional planning commissions; CCRPC staff expect municipal-level disaggregation by January 2023 and will advise whether upcoming municipal comprehensive plans must include the updated energy data.
No formal action was taken on ECOS plan text or TOD boundaries at the Nov. 9 meeting; staff said they hope to finalize a draft MTP in January and will return to PAC for a final discussion then.