Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayston debate centers on whether new trail standards should be mandatory on private land
Summary
Residents and conservation groups clashed over proposed LUR language that broadens trail rules and uses the word "shall," with concerns about legal enforceability for private landowners and downstream erosion risks. Commissioners will seek legal advice and revise language.
The Planning Commission hearing on July 14 turned into an extended debate over how Fayston should regulate trails after proposed Land Use Regulation edits broadened the scope from "bicycle trails" to "trails" and adopted State trail definitions.
Residents raised persistent concerns that replacing "should" with "shall" would make the standards legally enforceable against private landowners. "'Shall' is a legal requirement, not a suggestion," resident Wendy Bridgewater said, summarizing a common concern among several speakers. Commissioners and supporters argued that mandatory language could protect downstream neighbors and make projects eligible for grants.
Zoning Administrator Jason Wilson explained that the LUR currently treats some trails as permitted uses and others as conditional, and that parcels with residences may treat trails as accessory uses. Several commenters asked whether new standards would force rebuilding of older trails built before the standards; commissioners discussed clarifying the wording to distinguish "construction" from "reconstruction" or "maintenance." The commission agreed to incorporate the public's concerns into revisions, consult the town lawyer and VLCT as needed, and seek a warned joint meeting with the Selectboard and CVRPC to review the revised language.
