Noise levels, lot sizes continue to vex zoning reg process

By Karen Zuppinger

The Chester Select Board continued its public review of the proposed Unified Development Bylaws (combining zoning, subdivision and flood  prevention regulations)  at its Wednesday, June 5th meeting. Although Article 4: Development Review Procedures was on the agenda, the board also chose to revisit the issues of minimum lots sizes and noise standards.

Board member Derek Suursoo questioned Section 4.3 Application Submission Requirements that deals with the building permit process. “What’s the process for permits that do not need to go before the Developmental Review Board?” Suursoo asked.

Board member Tom Bock, acting in his post chairman for the Planning Commission, said that this section is for uses that require additional review beyond those addressed in the permits section.

Suursoo sought clarification on bonds that are put up by developers to cover the costs of public improvements, like roads. He asked if the cost of the improvements exceeded the amount of the bond, who would be responsible for the overage — the town or the developer? The Select Board compared the issue to getting an estimate for paving during a time of rising oil prices. Those rising oil prices would render any paving estimate inadequate.

Bock  said the answer is unclear, but sought suggestions from the board to address the wording.

One board member suggested that a periodic review of such bonds by an engineer was advisable.  Since Chester does not have a town engineer, one would have to be hired. But the board said that the choice of engineer would be the town’s while the developer would have to pay for it.

Board member Arne Jonynas was concerned about Section 4.6 Planned Unit Development, General Standards line 9 a&b dealing  with public vs. private housing.

DeBenedetti sought to revisit the daytime noise limits, asking whether they should apply to businesses but not to residents.  Suursoo suggested having no daytime noise limits unless restrictions were part of a conditional use permit.

As the statute currently reads, the Development Review Board allows a building density increase of 25 percent for private buildings and 50 percent for public housing. Jonynas says that he finds this to be discriminatory toward low-income residents, allowing “builders to cram more units into the same amount of space.” Jonynas said that he believes that the density provision should be equal.

Bock said that he was unsure if this housing regulation was set by these bylaws or if they reflected state standards, but he would  look into the matter and get back to the board.

Chairman DeBenedetti sought to revisit the daytime noise limits, asking whether they should apply to businesses but not to residents.  Suursoo suggested having no daytime noise limits unless restrictions were part of a conditional use permit.

DeBenedetti also addressed the proposed R3 zone again, which got the most pushback from not only the board, but private citizens as well. An R3 zone would mean that future residential construction could not take place on less than 3 acres. Bock said this was what people wanted in the 2009 survey. But a review of the summary indicates that participants wanted clustered housing to preserve open space and affordable housing as well.

Suursoo maintained that someone driving past a house would probably not see the difference between 2-acre and 3-acre lots.  Bock asserted that taxes from outlying houses do not support town services such as roads and schools. But several board members disagreed, pointing out that the roads are already in place and have to be plowed and the schools are already there, whether there are more homes or fewer.

Bock asserted that taxes from outlying houses do not support town services such as roads and schools. But several board members  disagreed, pointing out that the roads are already in place and have to be plowed and the schools are already there, whether there are more homes or fewer.

Suursoo remarked that the 3-acre rule seems like people buying their piece of Vermont, then trying to close the door to others.

The board asked the planning commission to take another look at this.

The board decided to take the next meeting — on Wednesday, June 19 — off from the reviewing the Development Bylaws since there is a full agenda with financial reports and the police study.

Economic development; DRB appointments

• In other business, town manager David Pisha reported that he had found a model for a townwide survey that could be tailored to fit the needs expressed in the recently released Economic Development Policy. The survey was used in a town in Virginia that is the same size and shares historic and aesthetic values with Chester. Pisha noted that the report is about 50 pages long, to which  DeBenedetti asked for the  Cliff Notes version.

• The board also discussed going to the Vermont Economic Development Summit until it became apparent that the summit had already happened. The board agreed it was a missed opportunity that fell between the cracks. DeBenedetti suggested that this underlines the need for an economic development committee to help Pisha.  Suursoo said he was “leery of taking on added responsibility.”

• The board voted unanimously to sell a 3.2 acre lot at the corner of Route 10 and Dean Brook Road to Ludlow resident Chris Marks for $3,500. The property was a tax lien property. Marks says that he had owned the property in the past and intends to use it for recreational purposes.

• The  board appointed Heidi Buxton-Ladd and Harry Goodell for three years on the Development Review Board, and Don Robinson for one year, with terms ending in June. The board is waiting to hear back from Ken Barrett to see if he’s willing accept a two-year term as an alternate.

• Assistant town clerk Julie Hance also confirmed that Chester’s application for Village Center Designation would be submitted to the state of Vermont later this month.

— Shawn Cunningham contributed to this article.