Planning Commission Minutes 6-4-2020

6-4-2020

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TOWN OF RUTLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

 

DATE: June 4th, 2020

Publicly accessible conference line

OPEN MEETING 6:30 P.M.

 

Present: Chairperson Barbara Noyes-Pulling, Dana Peterson, Howard Burgess, Sherman Hunter, Andy McKane, Mary Beth Poli, Jim Hall and Norman Cohen

Approval of the Agenda:

Mr. Cohen moved to approve the agenda. Mr. McKane seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

New Business: Discussion of Rutland Railway Association Museum

  1. A message was left for members of the museum asking them to come and talk to the Planning Commission, no one has replied yet.

New Business: Preview of Stormwater Ordinance online map

  1. Ms. Noyes-Pulling reviewed the tool with the developer and let them know we would like a tutorial available for the public to have access to.
  2. Ms. Noyes-Pulling asked the commission members to email her their suggestions on the map so she can compile them.

New Business: Planning Commission comments to the Select Board on the Harbor Freight Act 250 permit application

  1. The Select Board asked the Planning Commission to review the application, particularly the natural resource section.
  2. A map of the proposed project area was reviewed.
  3. The Vermont ANR mapping tool was used to review the project area and allowed the commission to review the project site with various overlays of data.
  4. The full application was reviewed.
    1. Criterion 4A, it was noted the text in the answer is cut off.
    2. Criterion 5i, a traffic study is needed to study the combined traffic from Aldis and the new store. The Commission will suggest the town review this study when its complete.
    3. Criterion 9B pt. c, it was noted the ANR tool shows the site DOES contain agricultural soils, but the application says it does not
    4. Criterion 9B pt. G and H, this answer needs to be yes or no. N/A is not an appropriate answer
    5. Criterion 9H pt. a, and 9L pt. a. the answers conflicting.
    6. Criterion 10b There are clerical errors in the answer. The date of adoption for the City of Rutland Plan is incorrect. It refers to a gateway district, which the town does not have designated.
    7. The questionnaire on page 22 was not addressed.

New Business: Planning Commission comments to the Select Board on Otter Creek 3 / Allco Energy response  

  1. Mr. Cohen commented he did not feel the letter received did not accurately or consistently address the letter signed by the Planning Commission Chair and the Select Board.
  2. Mr. McKane felt the developer has done what they need to do, and this change could be considered minor. He feels it should move forward without any more review. Other Commission members supported this.
  3. Ms. Noyes-Pulling commented that some of the information which was cited in their reply was incomplete and inaccurate.
  4. Mr. Peterson commented that the proposed change should not be held up due to the changes in the Town Plan and should not be held up for procedural issues.
  5. Ms. Noyes-Pulling asked if the letter, which is full of inaccuracies, should be accepted.
    1. The letter did not address all the criteria in the plan.
      1. #3 was not listed, and it is very important.
      2. The commission discussed whether this could be a reason to reject the letter.
    2. Mr. McKane asked for a motion, and then allow it to be discussed.
    3. Mr. McKane moved to accept the letter as sent and advise the Select Board to allow the project to move forward without any further review. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion.
      1. Mr. Hall discussed his concerns about accepting a letter, which has errors in it and the precedent it could have on future filings. Mr. Cohen echoed this concern.
      2. Mr. Cohen stated the plan was changed, and this change was NOT done because of this project and feels the updated plan should apply to this project, including the viewshed analysis.
  • Mr. Hall also stated the additional review of this project was a result of the applicant having to refile and not driven by the town.
  1. Mr. Hunter suggested approving it but pointing out it does not meet our current plan but giving approval since it was approved under a previous application and the proposed changes are not substantial.
  2. Ms. Noyes-Pulling stated the review of this was needed to protect the substantial deference which the new Town Plan gives us.
  3. Ms. Noyes-Pulling addressed concerns about accepting a letter which has inaccuracies.
  • Mr. Peterson pointed out there is a difference between not standing in the way of the project being developed and accepting a letter which is inaccurate. He asked if the town had received the impact fees, which are mentioned in the letter. It was confirmed that the town has received these funds. Ms. Noyes-Pulling discussed this as one of the inaccuracies in that it refers to an MOU with the town that goes back to site standards from 4 years ago.
  • Mr. Burgess agrees with allowing the project to move forward.
  1. Mr. McKane suggested he could modify his motion to indicate the Commission has received the letter but does not address the inaccuracies.
  2. Mr. McKane amended his motion to accept the letter, and to not verify accuracies or inaccuracies in it and allow the project to move forward without any further review. Mr. Peterson asked for an amendment to state the letter is acknowledged and to allow the project to move forward. Mr. McKane accepted this change. Mr. Cohen asked that the chair point out there are factual and legal inaccuracies in the letter regarding the Town Plan. Mr. McKane asked for the motion to be voted on without and additional amendments.
  3. Ms. Noyes-Pulling reviewed the motion on the floor to acknowledge the letter from Allco and the Planning Commission does not recommend any further review and to allow the project to move forward. After some further discussion, Mr. Peterson stated the motion as amended. The motion is the Planning Commission has received the letter from Allco and recommends the project move forward without any further review.
    1. A roll call vote was taken.
      1. Mr. Burgess voted in favor
      2. Mr. Cohen voted against
      3. Mr. Hall voted in favor
      4. Mr. Hunter voted in favor
      5. Mr. McKane voted in favor
      6. Mr. Peterson voted in favor
      7. Ms. Poli voted in favor
      8. Ms. Noyes-Pulling voted against
    2. The vote from Mr. was not needed since Mr. Burgess is present. The motion passes 5-2.
  • Mr. Cohen moved to authorize the chair, to include in her comments to the Select Board that the Planning Commission has determined to proceed notwithstanding there are significant errors, factual and legal errors in the letter. Ms. Noyes-Pulling clarified that this was to inform the board of the errors. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion for discussion purposes. After some discussion on changing the wording and input from several members the motion was amended to authorize the chair, to include in her comments to the Select Board that the Planning Commission has determined to proceed notwithstanding there are significant factual errors in the letter. Mr. McKane asked for the vote on the motion to be taken.
    1. A roll call vote was taken.
      1. Mr. Burgess voted against
      2. Mr. Hunter voted against
      3. Mr. McKane voted against
      4. Ms. Poli voted against
      5. Ms. Noyes-Pulling abstained
      6. Mr. Hall voted against
      7. Mr. Cohen had disconnected from the call
  • The commission members discussed Ms. Noyes-Pulling being able to address their concerns with the Select Board as part of her role, at the next Board meeting.

Announcements

  • Discussed the future of meetings being in person or continuing remotely. After some discussion, the commission decided to meet remotely at the next meeting.

Approval of minutes May 14th, 2020:

  • Mr. Hunter moved to accept the minutes. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment:

  • The meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Bill Sweet

______________________________________

Barbara Noyes-Pulling

Rutland Town Planning Commission Chair