BRANDON PLANNING COMMISSION

JAN. 4, 2010

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

Others present: Tina Wiles

The meeting was opened at 7:10 pm

Minutes - Motion by Ojala / Stewart to approve the minutes of the November 30. 2009 meeting as written. Passed.

Article III - Land Use Districts

Ethan said the land use districts in the current ordinance were defined arbitrarily. They have not always followed parcel lines. He said he understands that Regional Planning created the landuse districts based on i.e., a certain buffer width (e.g. 300 feet per side of road) off Route 7 (or another street), rather than by following parcel lines, municipal infrastructure, or landuse patterns. He said the Commission should think of that when reworking this.

Linda questioned the names of the districts. For example, "high density multi use," which is a term not being used anywhere else in state zoning. Linda said she likes the  descriptions and names used in Middlebury's ordinance

Linda and Tina both said the Middlebury ordinance was well done and easy to understand. Linda said it has strict rules on what you could do and where you could do it. There are some streets with high aesthetic rules. She said a lot of the delineation is based upon uses.

Tina said there are problem areas in Brandon. There are a lot of existing non-complying buildings and uses. For example, Nexus, is facing a problem. The building was non-complying and now that the business closed more than a year ago, the use cannot be continued. It will be a problem for someone who wants to come in and do light manufacturing there.

Ethan said the board needs to decide if we should be continuing to perpetuate these land use districts. Or should the board look at a comprehensive approach to defining the performance standards and how they should apply.

There was discussion that the last time the ordinance was changed, the "industrial" land use district was removed. Right now, Brandon's industrial park is zoned high density multi-use. Linda suggested defining what type of uses are suited for the industrial park.

Tina said a problem with the ordinance is parcel with straddle two land use districts. That has been a problem for the owners of the Neshobe PUD proposal.

Ethan said the current land use district lines are arbitrary. For example, the aquifer district is theoretical. We do not have exact facts for knowing what to protect there. He said Middlebury's ordinance uses sometimes geographic features to set one district apart from another. He said with Brandon's ordinance, perhaps the approach should be to strengthen the current performance standards. That would help with consistency and transparency no matter what is proposed.

There was discussion on some zoning map decisions made with the last ordinance changes. For example, high impact uses are prohibited from the industrial park. That doesn't make sense. The board talked about taking a dramatically different approach to the zoning districts. 

Tina suggested perhaps eliminating the uses.

Linda said looking at the Middlebury ordinance, our's looks very weak and Middlebury's  looks like it was written by a professional.

Ethan said some of the figures used in our ordinance are arbitrary and don't necessarily make sense. For example, the impervious coverage percentages can perhaps be contradictory to some state regulations. Tina said we don't cover whether land is undevelopable, perhaps because of wetland or ledge, if it should be included, for example, when calculating for impervious coverage?

Linda said Middlebury had a very clear standard for landscaping. They also have a design committee. Janet said Brandon has a Historic Preservation Committee which could give advice on design but there is no mandate in the ordinance which would force someone to confer with them. Ethan said there is language in the Town Plan such as encouraging the use of the Brandon Workbook as a guidance manual for when developers are renovating historic structures. Additional enabling language includes:

"Encourage the compatibility of new commercial construction within the Town with the historic character of the community."

That language could enable the Planning Commission to add language to the ordinance in this regard.

There was discussion about the Google Document and what has been posted so far.

Ethan said overall, if the board is looking at a different approach regarding land use districts, they should perhaps delay working on this Article. He said he would like to invite the town planner from Middlebury to talk with us but first, everyone really needs to read their ordinance. Tina said the Middlebury created "waivers" in places of a variance.

Tina said another problem with the Brandon ordinance is the speed limit method for determining setbacks. For example, a 100' setback because the speed limit is 40 mph on i.e., Town Farm Road, when some houses are only 30' setback from the road, it can't be done.

Janet said in other years, the Planning Commission has talked about restricting subdivisions to create new lots which don't have road frontage. Jeff said in other places, he has seen restrictions on new lots requiring each lot to have a certain percentage of the acreage having to have road frontage.

The Board decided to recommend to the Selectboard for two BLUO amendments for their immediate consideration. By amending Section 501(d), it will give a potential new building or business owner the ability to move into a building that had been non-conforming but had been in compliance, except the use had been discontinued for more than one year. 

Motion by Stewart / Ojala to amend Section 501(d) of the Brandon Land Use Ordinance as follows:

A nonconforming use which has ceased may only be resumed in accordance with the following provisions:

i. A nonconforming use which has been discontinued and replaced by a conforming use may not be resumed or re-established.

ii. A nonconforming use which has been discontinued and has not been replaced by a conforming use may be resumed within four (4) years of the date of discontinuance, with conditional use approval by the Development Review Board based upon the review and conformity with Section 600 Performance Objectives and Standards of the Brandon Land Use Ordinance. A nonconforming use which has been discontinued for more than four years may not be resumed or re-established.

Passed unanimously.

The second recommendation is intended to enforce people to get state and federal permits when needed before their Brandon permit is valid:

Motion by Stewart / Ojala to recommend an addition to the Brandon Land Use Ordinance. "Section 112. Compliance with State and Federal Regulations. Upon receipt of a local zoning permit applicants may not undertake any development until all applicable state and / or federal permits required for the project have been received including any clearing or preparation of the land."

Motion passed unanimously

Next meeting - January 20, 2009 at 7 pm at the Douglas Birthplace.

Being no further business, the meeting closed at 9:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted

Janet Mondlak

Recording Secretary