Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayston planning commission reopens debate on trails regulation in Land Use Regulations
Summary
Commissioners debated whether private trails should require permits, clarified prior edits that used the word “shall,” and agreed to refine definitions and exemptions (Section 9.2) so private-use trails and larger commercial operations are treated differently.
The Fayston Planning Commission spent substantial time on Sept. 9 discussing how trail construction and use should be treated in Article 2 of the town’s Land Use Regulations (LURs). Chair Paul Quinlan said the topic arose from an effort to repair a broken link in the regulations and to align local requirements with State of Vermont guidance. Commissioners noted prior edits that used the word “shall” when referencing guideline compliance; Langford Davidson confirmed, “Yes, we did use the word shall.”
Commissioner Freddie Graves moved to rescind the previous change that introduced “shall meet” language, but the motion received no second and therefore did not advance. The group discussed whether landowners building trails for private use should be required to obtain a permit; it was noted that, as currently written, the LURs would require permits for trail development. Members of the public raised questions about VAST routes where the snowmobile association secures permission from multiple property owners, and Doug Wilson noted that state permission is sometimes required for structures such as bridges adjacent to streams and wetlands.
The Commission agreed to continue work on this item: craft a clear definition of “trail,” review the definition of “Outdoor Recreational Facility,” and develop exemptions in Section 9.2 (including repair and maintenance exemptions) to distinguish small private trails from larger recreational operations. No formal amendment or vote on the LUR language occurred at this meeting.
