Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Bylaw topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenter details proposed floodplain bylaw changes and mapping timeline
Summary
A presenter summarized draft bylaw revisions that distinguish types of fill and grading, retain a no‑build rule, and would require substantially improved structures to be raised two feet above the presenter's cited "base rotation." Draft mapping updates for Southern Vermont were described as more detailed, with a potential rollout around 2027 and a recommendation to consolidate changes into a single warned hearing.
Presenter (identified in the transcript as S3) outlined draft revisions to a floodplain-related bylaw and a related mapping update, saying the draft differentiates fill and grading that cause a loss of flow storage from work that does not and keeps certain exemptions such as agriculture and forestry.
The presenter said the draft includes a structural standard: "if a structure is substantially improved, it needs to be brought up to 2 feet above the base rotation," and noted the draft retains a no‑build provision while the working document exists in multiple track‑changes versions kept after a client hearing. The presenter also told the group that some exemptions for historic structures remain in the draft.
Why it matters: the proposed distinctions about fill, grading and structural improvements would affect what work is allowed in floodplain areas and when a project must meet higher elevation or no‑build constraints. Updated flood maps—described as more detailed than the older panels, which the presenter said were roughly from the 1980s—could change which parcels are affected.
The presenter described mapping work already published in draft form for Southern Vermont and estimated a broader map rollout around 2027. They warned that once a select‑board hearing is warned, substantial text changes generally cannot be made until after that hearing; if substantial changes are made afterward, the presenter said another hearing would be required. To avoid repeated hearings, the presenter recommended consolidating changes and aiming to hold a single hearing within the one‑year window.
The board discussed publication and logistics: printing issues were noted, and the presenter asked members to coordinate any text changes in the digital version before the hearing is warned. The presenter also raised technical concerns attendees had asked about—such as not increasing base‑load velocity prior to the select‑board hearing—and said the team would make sure outstanding questions are addressed before formal adoption moves forward.
No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript on the bylaw or mapping items. The presenter said they had multiple track‑changes versions available for review and recommended the board set a hearing date after resolving open items.
Next steps: the presenter recommended finalizing coordination of text changes, warning a single consolidated hearing, and preparing to address the updated mapping when the board discusses the bylaw publicly.
