Town of Brandon Public Hearing

Brandon Land Use Ordinance

February 22, 2010

In Attendance:  Keith Arlund, Tom Schmelzenbach, Ethan Swift, Linda Stewart, Jeff Stewart, Chris Brickell, Maurice Racine, Norm Maillot, Lee Kahrs, Phyllis Reed, Helyn Anderson

Bill Hatch opened the Public Hearing at 7:02PM for comments.

Mitch Pearl stated there are two separate issues that are addressed in the notice; one is to amend Section 501d concerning the issue of non-conforming structures. This is to resolve some of the issues that have arisen with non-comforming uses that have not been redeveloped within the year. The second part is to add Section 112, which deals with an issue of whether applicants can undertake any development of a project that requires other permits. It states that the permit applicants cannot undertake any development until all state and federal permits have been received. He understands the intent and does not have a problem with the basic concept, but the way it is worded may go too far and may not be what was intended. This would prohibit any development whatsoever, which includes test pits, putting in a driveway or doing anything unless all applicable permits are received. He stated this would be a catch-22 for developers, as they may not be able to get all permits until some of the work is done. Mr. Pearl stated it would be his intention to sever the two issues in order to be able to vote on the non-conforming portion. He will suggest tabling action on the new Section 112 until further discussion is held.  

Ethan Swift appreciated Mr. Pearl's observation and he pointed out there is a definition for development and it speaks specifically to structures, but there is another area that does speak to the items such as driveways. Mr. Swift stated the other issue the Planning Commission faces are projects that move forward when all permits have not been properly secured and these instances have more to do with substantial land preparation such as grading, filling in wet lands, etc.  He stated there are a number of instances where development does proceed without all of the permits received and he appreciates this perspective.  He stated that items such as perk testing would be a necessary step to securing a permit.

Mitch Pearl would like to see the non-conforming issues dealt with and a fine-tuning done on Section 112, prior to voting on that item. He does not feel that the Board disagrees with the intent, but just the fact there needs to be some fine-tuning. 

Maurice Racine questioned if there will be another draft available once it has been fine-tuned.  He understands test pits are a matter of course in the permitting process. He stated the Board should be careful that incremental construction is not allowed to be taken.  Mitch Pearl does not have specific wording to offer this evening and it is uncertain whether it will go back to the Planning Commission for their perusal and rewrite. Kellie Martin stated the Select Board can make minor changes without going back to the Planning Commission.

Richard Baker noted a change to Section 112 would be to place a comma after the word development and move the last phrase "including any clearing or preparing of the land until all applicable state and/or federal permits required for the project have been received." 

Ethan Swift stated if there is a way of qualifying and preparing the land, it may clear some of this up. Mitch Pearl stated he wants to make sure that the Board does not create more problems than what they want to resolve.  He stated there are all sorts of activities that are regulated by the state and federal government and cannot be obtained until after the project is done.  He stated when one starts talking about all permits, it raises issues and he wants to make sure that it reads properly. Devon Fuller asked if there are federal or state regulations about perk testing or is that a local issue. Ethan Swift stated this item would be subject to the state-wide regulations and is part of the state-wide permitting process.

Richard Baker stated in postponing Section 112, it gives the Board the opportunity to be sure that it is clear. Devon Fuller questioned if there is a timeframe to act on this subject and Mr. Baker stated it would be noted in the motion to table the item.  

The hearing closed at 7:20PM.