TOWN OF
RUTLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
MINUTES:
The meeting opened at 7:00
P.M.
Commission
members present: Howard Burgess, Anthony Flory, Richard
Hoenes, Richard Lloyd, William Matteson, Jerry Stearns, Tom Turner and Charles Vajda.
Review of the 1/15/2009 Minutes
The minutes from the January
15th mixer were reviewed and one change was made to Jamie Stewart’s
title as Executive Director of REDC.
Mr. Stearns motioned to accept the minutes with this change and Mr.
Lloyd seconded the motion. All were in
approval.
Review of the 1/22/2009 Minutes
The
minutes from the 1/22/2009 meeting were discussed. Mr. Stewart’s title had to be changed and a few typos and minor
changes were added. Mr. Lloyd motioned
to accept these minutes with the changes and Mr. Hoenes seconded the
motion. All were in approval.
The Rutland Town Plan
Ms.
Tara Kelly from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission was present to review
several sections of the proposed Town Plan.
She had mailed out copies of sections completed to the Commission
members prior to this meeting.
Mr. Turner motioned to accept the Transportation
section and Mr. Hoenes seconded the motion.
All were in approval.
Some minor changes were discussed including dating
the population size as of 2007, changing the census date to 2000 and
eliminating a paragraph made obsolete by Table 3. There were also a couple of typos. Mr. Turner suggested adding that the Town appraisal will be
completed in 2009.
Mr. Hoenes motioned to accept the Community Profile
section with these changes and Mr. Lloyd seconded the motion. The motions were then withdrawn when Mr.
Turner said that he preferred to see the revised copy before voting on its
acceptance.
It was suggested that in the section that mentions
the Gables and the Meadows, that the Maples Senior Community be mentioned as
being in the City but near Rutland Town.
It was also suggested that someone check to see if The Maples offers
subsidized units.
Another item mentioned was that the Federal
government was offering $15,000 loans to some first time home owners at no
interest.
Ms. Kelly thought the report should acknowledge the
decline of housing prices starting in the 2008-2009 time-frame.
It was decided that the definition of affordable
housing be included along with the income needed to afford a two-bedroom
apartment. This would include dual
income affordable housing.
Mr. Matteson said he would like the latest figures on
wages.
Mr. Turner said that he didn’t think the chart on
income vs. the cost of housing was correct citing gross vs. after tax
wages. Ms. Kelley is to bring in the
source documents for this section. She
will also check into whether HUD includes the utilities in the cost of housing.
Mr. Turner suggested adding positive statements from
the old plan if they still hold true.
It was suggested that the Child Care section be
separated from the Housing section.
Commission members thought it would be a good idea to
include the after school programs and recreational activities.
Ms.
Kelly said she would forward to the Commission members corrections to these
sections as well as the Economic section.
Mr. Matteson said that he would like to have Jamie Stewart from REDC
back to discuss the Economic section further.
Ms. Kelly said she would attend the next meeting on February 19th.
(2)
Zoning
Mr. Turner had previously
handed out to the Commission eight changes that came out of the Select Board
hearing on zoning. He motioned that
these changes be endorsed by the Commission.
Mr. Hoenes seconded the motion.
All were in approval.
Closed Deliberative Sessions and Deemed Approval
Mr. Turner reminded the
Commission that they can hold closed deliberative sessions before determining action
to permit a subdivision.
He also reminded the
Commission that, under Section 185-20 of the Town Code, if the Planning
Commission fails to reach a subdivision decision within forty-five days after
the public hearing, then such failure shall be deemed approval of it. However, based on the Vermont supreme Court
decision in the 1998 Newton Enterprises case, there are circumstances by which
a failure to reach a concurrence of the majority will nevertheless result in a
decision having been made by the Planning Commission and deemed approval cannot
occur. Such situations can be complex,
so more detail can be provided if needed by the Commission at some future
time. Mr. Turner stated that the
information had been provided by The Vermont League of Cities and Towns at
their educational sessions which some members of our Commission have attended
in prior years.
Hubbard Subdivision
There was a lengthy
discussion on the Hubbard subdivision.
Mr. Turner passed out a synopsis of the Environmental Court decision
that voided the permit given to the Hubbards for a subdivision back in 2006.
(see attached) He said that a full copy
of the document was available and Mr. Matteson asked Mr. Zingale to provide
copies to all the Commission members.
Mr. Zingale said that the
Hubbards would like to schedule a site visit. Mr. Matteson said that it would
be appropriate to have a plot plan available to the members before that
visit. Mr. Zingale said that that the
Hubbards had provided a sketch plan at the last meeting they attended. Mr. Matteson said that the sketch plan was
inadequate and the Hubbard’s lawyer had said it was a work in progress.
(3)
Mr. Hoenes and Mr. Turner
said that they have usually had a plot plan to go by when doing a site
visit. Mr. Zingale said that the
Hubbards would like to avoid having to do two maps, one for the Commission to
review at the site visit and another if changes needed to be made. Mr. Zingale said that he felt these
applicants were being discriminated against and Mr. Matteson said that this
wasn’t so since the Hubbards had received a subdivision permit in 2006 but the
Environmental Court ruled it void.
Mr. Zingale said he wanted
it stated for the record that at least two other applicants had their
subdivisions or lot line adjustments approved without a final plot plan
available. He cited the permits for Mr.
Denardo and Mr. Fish. Mr. Turner said
that if there were any improper procedures followed in the past, the Commission
should try to avoid making them again, especially in light of the fact that the
Hubbard subdivision approved by the Commission had been thrown out by the
Court.
Mr. Stearns asked if it
wouldn’t be acceptable to have the Hubbards provide a map prior to the site
visit.
A motion was made by Mr.
Flory to have a site visit on March 5, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Lloyd seconded the motion. The motion failed by a 3-4 vote, without Mr.
Matteson having to cast a vote.
Mr. Lloyd said that he felt
the Commission had been inconsistent in the past and said he felt this was now
a dead issue. He motioned to end the
meeting. Mr. Vajda seconded the
motion. All were in approval.
The meeting ended at 9:05
P.M.
_____________________________________ _______________
William Matteson, Chairman Date
(4)