Commission finds APD rule strip-out not consistent after property-rights concerns

Staff presented TA 25-03 proposing to move multiple agricultural-preservation provisions from the zoning ordinance into separate bylaws and a rules-and-regulations document. The department’s rationale was administrative: the provisions could be managed more appropriately in rules rather than ordinance text.

Several commissioners asked whether moving the language would create a regulatory gap if the rules were not adopted before the text was removed. Jennifer David, the rural planner, explained which provisions would move into the bylaws and which would be considered in the draft rules-and-regs. Public comment followed: an attorney representing APD landowners warned that the proposed changes could be applied retroactively to longstanding APDs and that removing the ordinance language without explicit guarantees would expose property owners to due-process and takings claims. "I would urge you to reject it," the counsel told the commission, arguing owners had been promised rules that govern their property when they entered APDs.

Following discussion, a motion to find TA 25-03 not consistent with the comprehensive plan was made, seconded and carried by roll call. Commissioners who raised concerns said the APD board and property owners should have clarity about retroactivity and that moving language piecemeal created legal and procedural risk. The item will return for further refinement.