Chester planners hear objections to proposed rural zoning changes
Shawn Cunningham | Jul 24, 2024 | Comments 1
By Shawn Cunningham
© 2024 Telegraph Publishing LLC
A proposed Chester Zoning District map shows rural districts in yellow and light green.
The amendment that the commission was preparing to put before the Select Board for adoption makes changes to the the “rural districts” that make up the vast majority of Chester’s 55 square miles.
Those changes include:
- renaming districts to more closely match their purpose and allowed uses,
- creating wildlife habitat and travel corridors,
- replacing minimum lot sizes in rural districts with a maximum density standard,
- defining uses including building and construction trades, heavy construction trades, and tourist lodging and
- enable clustering of residential units as tiny house and “cottage courts,” made up of homes of under 900-square-feet.
You can read the proposed amendment in a marked up version of the town’s Unified Development Bylaws, which encompass rules for zoning, subdivision and flood hazard mitigation by clicking here. Changes are marked in red.
An illustration from the proposed amendment compares a 20-acre lot with four dwellings under a ‘minimum lot size’ of 5 acres with another lot also with four dwellings but with a maximum density of 5 acres averaged across the 20 acre lot. Current zoning sets the minimum lot size as 3 acres in the R120 district and 5 acres in the Conservation Residential district.
Quinn kicked off the hearing by giving a brief rundown on what the board was trying to accomplish with the new regulations, noting that the maximum density standard was meant to allow for more housing development while preserving open land.
The idea is to allow a landowner to build on smaller – even 2 acre – parcels as long as the entire lot density does not exceed 5 acres. (See illustration from the proposed amendment.)
He explained that this would “create a level of flexibility” that would help people who own a parcel with portions that are ‘unbuildable’ to maximize the number of dwellings that could be built on their land. The open land remaining could not be further subdivided in the future and would be corridors for wildlife to move about.
Hugh Quinn, left, listens as Peter Hudkins explains his objections to the proposed ‘maximum density’ standard. Photos by Shawn Cunningham
Peter Hudkins, a current Select Board member and former Planning Commission chair, said the idea was a prescription for “rural strip” development along roads that would not be able to support it. He pointed to Smokeshire and Popple Dungeon as roads that have washed out several time in recent years. Saying that the commission is “pushing rural development in a town that doesn’t have roads for rural development,” Hudkins asserted that the increased traffic would require more maintenance and greater expense for the town.
Smokeshire resident Derek Suursoo said that strips of housing would block wildlife corridors. But commission member Jeff Holden said that from his experience patrolling late at night as a police officer, wildlife will adjust and adapt, recalling “lots of deer walking around the streets.” Suursoo called that “very contrary” to his observations.
Quinn went on to say that the commission isn’t adding housing, but rather the “the opportunity for housing.” He then noted that some people look at a proposed zoning change expecting the worst to happen. “It almost never does,” he said.
Phil Perlah, who said he was speaking not as a member of the Development Review Board but as a resident, took exception to that. Perlah asserted that the regulations should assume the worst-case scenario.
Derek Suursoo tells the commission he’d prefer larger minimum lot sizes
While Hudkins warned against allowing a lot more houses where the roads are marginal and difficult to maintain, commission member Barre Pinske questioned Hudkins’ motivations since Hudkins had had attended the commission meetings and could have brought his objections up before.
Jason Rasmussen, executive director of the Mount Ascutney Regional Commission, said the idea is to maintain larger lots. But Suursoo responded that the commission could just increase the minimum lot size in places like Smokeshire. He pointed to the old timers buying a piece of land together in the 1970s – when $50,000 was a lot of money – to keep it from being developed. Suursoo said they made the choice to have larger lots but that’s changing now.
Pinske responded, “I get it, you like your life, I hear you guys but I don’t agree.” He later said he didn’t like doing “all this work” and having to change it.
But Quinn and Rasmussen said there were things worth revisiting including the maximum density plan, how cottage courts would work if they are not hooked to town water and sewer and the description of categories of tiny homes that Perlah described as “not quite artfully drafted.”
In the end, Quinn said he thought the feedback was excellent although it took some “back and forth so we could understand it.”
Filed Under: Chester Planning Commission • Featured • Latest News
I am currently the longest tenured person on the Chester Planning board. I try very hard to help our board make choices that’s best for the community. I’m also not afraid to say what I think especially if I feel there’s manipulation going on. We have to consider the environment, housing, flooding, wildlife, plants and climate along with quality of life and business as primary concerns. That being said I have been working on the new bylaws for maybe 4-5 years now we had a consultant a few years back we brought everything to the table for completion and our chair at the time Peter Hudkins who was tasked with bringing our work the the select board tossed the work under the bus creating chaos a complete redo. Right or wrong result when you have meetings are paying a consultant and the majority of the board agrees where we are going, public hearings are held with maps, charts questions and all the paperwork! Also, a complete report has to be sent to all neighboring towns with all the intended plans it’s no small task before the intended last public hearing. My question then was why couldn’t we straighten things out ahead of time? I’ll tell you why bad leadership, poor communication skills and subtle manipulation like the pain in the where relative who has the change the vacation hotel for some last minute reason that only matters to them but disrupts the whole vacation that’s why. As with what happened last week when I asked my town government relative Peter why now? He attends nearly every meeting and knows what is going on. We have a good group of board members, we are paying for another consultant we send out our letters of intent to all the towns and here comes the wrench in the gears again. His excuse was elbow surgery he missed the specific meeting come on he could have reached out earlier saving Cathy and Preston the need to send out all the information we have done to the neighboring towns. A complete waste of their time! He claims he’s done amazing things in construction engineering but asked about frontage he says he needs to look at it like geometry and can’t do that in his head. He can’t write anything for us to explain himself better because he’s dyslexic but like a crying kid he knows how to get his way. He can’t put together a beginning, middle and an end to make a point he starts mid thought and then doesn’t complete the concept creating a clear conclusion. Years of this nonsense. I realize it’s not a good idea to call people out especially a townie and but enough is enough. Peter is involved on our team, teams work when people are team players. Winning teams communicate well and work together to achieve their goals. The hurdles we have to jump now to compete this work are small we have knowledgeable help from our consultant Jason from regional planning, our paid town planner Preston. We as a team have put much time, thought and effort into the bylaws. Hugh has stepped up as a chair and a leader and is doing his homework to help steer the ship. I see this as coming down to politics who can sway the select board and the town manager as to what’s going to happen which may or may not be what’s best for the town. Peter wants what’s best for him and his buddies you can bet on that he will be begging to have things his way. As mentioned I want what’s best for everyone and everything involved. I know our board members do too. Please ask your Select Board members to support our final revision unless they personally have issues with it so we can finish our work and move on to possibly solving bigger problems and help create a better future for our town. Our town can’t afford to keep paying people to help us and not get the work done it’s a waste of time and money. I feel we are a bit economically and culturally lost right now. We don’t have what we need here in to make living here worth the cost. There is a lack of work force, places to gather, and huge cultural void. The housing issue is huge we are not solving our problems and more are being created. Our board may be able to take on some challenges we face and make a difference we need these bylaws done with to move on to other work.