Planning members say state review forces rewrite of multifamily objective criteria

A staff member told the planning board that the town must rewrite its multifamily objective criteria after a state review concluded those rules were not enforceable. "Essentially all of our objective criteria was deemed essentially illegal," the staff member said, adding that "the state has a provision that requires towns to allow special use permits and variances simultaneously." The comment reflected the board's understanding that the town cannot require a special‑use permit applicant to forgo a variance when the state allows both requests at once.

The finding matters because the board had been using objective criteria to limit when multifamily development could be allowed in certain zones. "If we're allowing variances for residential, I mean, I don't see why we wouldn't allow for commercial," the staff member said, summarizing one effect of the state interpretation.

Board members proposed a new approach that would preserve local control while complying with state rules. One participant said the board would "come up with something different probably like buffer probably a limit on the variance probably like a no more than 50% variance request or something like that which allows it but limits it." Members discussed drafting objective criteria specific to the Commercial Village (CV) zone to permit higher densities and encourage second‑floor apartments, and agreed to include revised definitions in the zoning ordinance's definitions section.

Members said they expect to develop the changes in a public workshop and possibly hold a non‑public hearing to refine the language before returning with a formal amendment. No motions or votes were recorded in the transcript. The board did not set a date for the workshop during the recorded exchange.

Next steps: staff will draft proposed language for variance limits and CV‑zone multifamily criteria and present it at a workshop for further board review.