Chester board says ‘no’ to new zoning idea, asks for tweaks to the rest of the plan Emails, in-person contacts influence the decision

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2024 Telegraph Publishing LLC

If you have ever thought that talking to or writing your local officials is not effective, the Chester Select Board meeting of Nov. 6 might change your mind.

Over the course of a couple of meetings, the board has been looking at something called “density-based zoning,” which would allow more large parcels to subdivided if the smaller lots are concentrated in a way that would leave the remaining portion untouched by development.

This would allow for housing to be built while preserving both the look of rural Vermont and the habitat of the animals who live there.

The scope of these changes would affect the vast majority of property in Chester by renaming the town’s two largest districts (see map.) The Chester Planning Commission brought the idea forward, saying that it eliminates minimum lot sizes and replaces those with a density standard.

Based on that, the commission proposed to rename the R120 district — with its 3-acre minimum lot size — to Rural 5 with a density of one building unit per 5 acres. Likewise, the Conservation/Residential district was to be renamed Rural 10 with a maximum density of one building per 10 acres. In those two districts, the minimum lot sizes would be 2 acres, down from the current 3 acres and 5 acres, respectively but to do this a landowner would have to have enough property to make the density work out to one building per 5 acres in Rural 5 or 10 acres in Rural 10.

In other words, the smaller lot sizes would only be available to those have enough acres to average the whole out to the density prescribed for  that district. The vision expressed to the Select Board was that there would be homes closer to the road leaving undivided land that could not be further developed behind them.

At earlier meetings, a few residents of those rural districts began to push back on several points. Some residents of the Smokeshire area said they would rather have larger minimum lot sizes as a way to inhibit over-development. They were concerned about clusters of housing along the roads, especially in an area that has experienced problems with access after recent floods.  Residents also questioned whether the conversion of a large lot into several 2 acre lots along the road would create sprawl.

The board had set aside the Nov. 6 meeting to discuss what direction it should give to the Planning Commission to help it  craft a zoning amendment that could pass a vote.

“We have to decide where we want to go with this,” said board chair Arne Jonynas who referred to half a dozen letters from residents opposed to making changes in the rural areas with an “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” viewpoint. Jonynas said he wasn’t sure from the letters if some of those writing understood the change.

Board member Lee Gustafson said he thought the board had already decided to abandon density-based zoning, which, he added, he understands and is against.

In addition to letters, board member Arianna Knapp said she had lengthy conversations with residents in the Mattson Road area who felt there was no need to make changes now and she sees their point.

Knapp said she agrees with Gustafson. “It’s just not time to change that.” But, she added,  the conditional uses have been modernized, “and that’s a really good step.”

After some discussion, the board asked the Planning Commission to drop the density-based zoning and continue its work on the uses that would be allowed in the two rural zones. The Planning Commission will likely work on its draft and hold another public hearing on the revised amendment before sending it back to the Select Board for another hearing and a vote on adopting it.