Board members present: Ethan Swift, Anne Bransfield, Linda Stewart, Jeff Ojala

Others present: Tina Wiles

The meeting was opened at 7:10 pm

Ethan said he has received comments from Tina Wiles regarding what needs attention in the Brandon Land Use Ordinance (BLUO). There were amendments to the BLUO that had been recommended by the Planning Commission to the Selectboard which had never been acted upon. After one year's time, they expired without being implemented. Tina has a copy of the Subdivision Regulations which did not get implemented.

Ethan said the current BLUO was adopted May 2006. In spring 2007, the Commission put forth a new draft of BLUO with amendments. They held two PC hearings and a few revisions were made. There were some interim sections proposed, specifically changes to the map, which were adopted in April 2008. The interim sections in BLUO were to be folded into the final draft which should have been adopted by the Selectboard in 2008. But the full proposed amendments were not acted upon.

Ethan said the current land use ordinance is good until something new is adopted. When readopted, it will only be good for a period of two years and then it can be done again for a year.

Linda said BLUO is not aligned with the intentions of the Town Plan and so it makes the Town Plan weak. Ethan said that is the charge of the Planning Commission with this rewrite. The Commission needs to look at those areas to be compatible with the new Town Plan. Tina has brought up a number of issues which need to be clarified, even ones that don't have any bearing on the Town Plan. Ethan said he hopes to accomplish those changes by working throughout the winter and spring.

Tina has put together a resource manual for Commissioners to help guide the process. A lot of information has come from other towns and resources so Commissioners don't have to "reinvent the wheel."

Ethan reviewed the process he would like to see:

There was discussion about what happened with the BLUO revisions and why they did not pass the Selectboard's approval.

Tina said there have been suggestions to put the Tree, Traffic and Central Business District Ordinances into BLUO. There is also a Sewer Ordinance but Tina said she thinks it needs to be updated.

Section 102 ( c ) Performance Criteria - are they measurable enough in order to apply a level of consistency? Tina said some of them are vague, such as the stormwater criteria. The criteria are usually all right for building a house. For something larger, i.e., a three lot subdivision, it is hard to gauge what might be considered "acceptable" for things like traffic. What is overdevelopment? What is substantial level of intensity? With the floodplain, anything over 50% is substantial but you can't tell that from the document. Ethan suggested maybe putting more qualifications around it to make it more implementable; try to incorporate more specificity.

Section 102 (b) What does: "Prevent the overdevelopment of land" mean? Perhaps the VT Forum on Sprawl could define this.

Section 102 ( c ) Do other towns have performance criteria? Some do. Others don't. Tina said developers like having them and they concentrate on that section. Sometimes it is not enough information for them. The sentence about "use clusters" is confusing. After discussion about its meaning, the last sentence of this section was deleted.

Section 103 - Tina said there is a language in section 1010 Appeals, regarding references made to the resolution of Dec. 23, 2002, adopted for the purpose of the town adopting MAPA. Something to this effect should be added to 103 Interpretation. It is restating that the town adopted this, which created the Development Review Board..

Section 104 (a) - Ethan asked if the land use permit application was amended and Tina said she did do that. It now follows Section 104 and asks the questions to mirror the section.

104 (a) (3) should also address filling. Tina said there should be something in the ordinance to address projects bringing in fill.

104 (a) Tina said this section should include parking lots and signs. She said in her opinion, signs are not structures. There also needs to be a definition of impervious versus non-impervious parking lots. Home occupations also need to be addressed here. They are addressed in Chapter 117.

Tina also questioned awnings and canopies. Should they be defined? An awning is not really part of the footprint of a building but there could be a large outside seasonal patio with a large awning that could be problematic. An awning can also be considered a sign. It was noted that there should be regulation of awnings over back decks. But there could be problems if they are part of a business use or in the CBD. Maybe they should be addressed with signs.

104 (a) (5) What does it mean? Can it be better defined? Is this an expansion of a permitted use? Can (4) and (5) be combined?. It was decided to add the words "or extension" to (4) and delete (5)

104 (a) (4) "Substantial change" needs to be defined in the definitions. The definition can include "extension" or "expansion."

104 (a) (6) This can have implications with people wanting to use an RV as a dwelling unit. How do define dwelling unit?

104 (a) (9) - need better definition of change in use or change in intensity of use. Perhaps this can be found defined elsewhere.

Section 104 (b) (2) Tina said this is confusing, especially in the accessory structure section. The Board referred to page 23. These two sections are not aligned with each other; there is a discrepancy between the square footage indicated in the sections. This section needs to be aligned with 402 ( c ). Tina says 402 ( c ) should be removed. If someone doesn't cross that threshold, they are exempt or referred to the primary setback. This has been problematic with signs. There should be a permit for every structure over 100 square feet. She suggested this should be less than 20' from the lot line, so someone isn't putting a garden shed in the middle of the backyard but rather closer to the edge or the property. The Board should consider decreasing the 20' setback.

Section 104 (b) (4) is a problem because new mobile homes are larger than old ones. Tina said there is an issue with the Forest Dale mobile home park being in the flood zone. This section needs to be reworded. There could be a home with a similar size and / or similar number of bedrooms but not exactly the same. Could use the square footage, i.e., no more than xx% increase over the size of the home registered on the approved site plan. This should be discussed further. Perhaps it should be addressed in the non-conforming section.

Next meeting - November 2, 2009 at 7 pm at the Douglas Birthplace. In the mean time, everyone can work on the document on the Google Docs document which Ethan will be putting on line.

Being no further business, the meeting closed at 9:05 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Janet Mondlak

Recording Secretary