Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Open Space Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Starksboro DRB accepts Norris 9-lot PUD for preliminary review amid dispute over how to calculate 60% open space
Summary
The Starksboro Development Review Board accepted the Norris 9-lot PUD application as complete for preliminary review but spent much of the hearing debating whether the PUD 60% open-space requirement applies to the entire parcel or only the portion proposed for development, raising questions about allowable lot sizes and whether changes will be needed before final approval.
The Town of Starksboro Development Review Board voted April 23 to accept application materials for preliminary review of #26-DRB-01, a proposed nine-lot planned unit development on property that includes wetlands and former gravel-pit areas. Chair Ben Campbell moved the completeness motion and the board voted unanimously to proceed; zoning administrator Stephen Rooney clarified that the motion accepted the application for hearing purposes, not approval.
A central point of the hearing was legal interpretation of the bylaws. Rooney read Section 358.G(1)(a) and concluded that, in his view, the ASRR district's minimum-lot-size range allows PUD lots up to 4 acres and that a 60% open-space requirement has been interpreted by town staff to apply to the entire parcel. Project engineer Jason Barnard and representative Scott Baker argued the regulations are ambiguous and that "development site" language could be meant to refer only to the area actually being developed rather than the entire parcel. Baker said the question of how the ordinance phrases "development site" is material to whether the plan complies as proposed.
Members of the public and the applicants pressed both interpretations. Dennis Casey contended that the regulations as written do not support applying 60% to the whole parcel, calling that reading "ludicrous," while Barnard and Baker urged the DRB to seek clarification from the Planning Commission rather than require the applicant to reconfigure lots at this stage. Chair Campbell said the board would work with applicants to identify conditions that require compliance without prescribing a specific redesign.
The disagreement matters for several reasons: it affects whether Lot 8 or Lot 9 must be resized or combined, whether a waiver is needed for a requested 2.16-acre minimum on Lot 6, and whether the application could unintentionally trigger a broader Act 250 review if parcel boundaries change. The DRB did not resolve the legal question at the hearing; members noted it may require Planning Commission input or an explicit bylaw interpretation.
