LONDONDERRY, Vt. – The Londonderry Selectboard held a public hearing prior to the June 17 meeting to get feedback from the community on the proposed zoning bylaws. Town moderator Doug Friant said, “This is your opportunity to tell us what you don’t like…be specific.”
Zoning administrator Will Goodwin, who also serves for Weston, Landgrove, and Peru, was in attendance to answer questions and concerns from the audience, and help clarify the language and regulations. Goodwin explained that the biggest concern from previous meetings was that people were reading the bylaws that were meant to be commercial regulations, and thinking they applied to residences. “I can’t tell you what’s right for Londonderry,” Goodwin said, “but I can tell you what’s normal.”
The first topic of concern raised was that firewood processing can only be done on weekdays, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pamela Spaulding said this doesn’t allow for people to process on weekends to supplement income from their normal job. Goodwin clarified these regulations pertain to industrial firewood processing companies and “wouldn’t apply to a home business.” An individual can split wood on their property. A later request was to clarify in the bylaws that the firewood processing section strictly pertained to “industrial” processing.
Another concern was permits for camping, and limiting the duration of camping. A scout troop camping for a week would violate the regulations. Goodwin explained it’s a regulation to prevent permanent campsites, and would be in compliance if it is for less than 60 days a year.
One resident who lived in a tiny house was concerned about her living situation being in compliance. Goodwin recommended it be installed by a professional, and the wheels be removed, but said that as an existing structure, her tiny house would be grandfathered in under the previous bylaws.
There was a question about the necessity to obtain a permit to operate a food truck on any property, even if it’s your own. Goodwin explained that is a normal zoning bylaw for any town to require a permit. The same resident also expressed that he thought it was unreasonable that if a complaint is made against you, you are “guilty until proven innocent.” He expressed that if there is a simple conflict and a complaint is made, it seems unreasonable to fight your case to prove your innocence. Goodwin stated that you would have a right to appeal the complaint.
Emails and written questions and concerns were also read aloud to be addressed. One letter referenced outdoor lights, swimming pool size, number of people allowed on a property, landscape design, and garage sales. Goodwin responded that outdoor light restrictions are for new commercial properties. Generally speaking, above-ground swimming pools do not need permits, while in-ground pools do. A public comment mentioned that the bylaws restrict pools from being in the front yard or side yard, and Goodwin said he could see changing that. Yard sales are restricted to three consecutive days to keep from having permanent yard sales. Goodwin said that plantings and landscape should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and he didn’t think there were any bylaws that restricted the number of vehicles allowed on a property.
Goodwin stated that everything in the bylaws is intended for new businesses and structures, indicating that anything existing would likely be grandfathered in under previous bylaws. He further explained that grandfathering comes with the land or property, not the ownership, so if a house is sold or inherited, the same guidelines would apply. There would be restrictions to that process for businesses, however.
Material storage is not forbidden, but controlled or limited. Portable structures such as canopies, garages, carports, and greenhouses can’t be used as permanent structures. Performance standards are a set of rules against excessive noise, pollution, smoke, and nonagricultural smells.
After hearing from everyone in the room, the board moved to discuss the next steps in the process. Member Jim Flemming said he thought the meeting was very productive, and, “Will has a lot of material to take back and adjust, and we’re making progress. This thing isn’t going to happen overnight.”
Chair Tom Cavanagh explained that the next steps would be for the selectboard to take action and hold public hearings for each change they make. The selectboard would have 150 days to complete the task, which would give them an Oct. 25 deadline. If the bylaws aren’t finalized by then, they go back to the planning commission, and time is wasted that the commission could have been working on them. Cavanagh estimated a four to five hour meeting every week to go through the bylaws line by line.
Board member Martha Dale expressed that she liked the feedback they received, and she was willing to put in the time after the planning commission had worked so hard. She said they could work hard and “strive to get there in time… I’m willing to do that…to help our town.”
Member Taylor Prouty added, “I think it’s important for us as a board to represent all of you in things that you have expressed to us, and make this not feel like something that’s been pushed on you, but a process that you have been a part of…It is going to be a lengthy process, but a worthwhile one if we work on it all together.”
The alternative step is to reject the bylaws as written and send them back to the planning commission to make adjustments from the comments made. They would have a head start on the process, Cavanagh said. “I have nine pages of concerns and questions,” he expressed. “I think myself, I’d have a hard time getting it done in 150 days.”
It was clarified that the planning commission would not have any time constraints on the process. They would also, during the editing process, be working off the preexisting bylaws. If the selectboard were to take over the process, the planning commission would have to use the old and new bylaws for every new permit application, which would likely cause a delay in many permits.
Goodwin expressed, “I think either process can work, but the clock is ticking with the selectboard.”
The audience voiced they thought it was best to send it back to the planning commission for the time constraints, and for the ease of using one set of bylaws during the process until the new bylaws can be adopted.
Dale expressed her concern that once you send the bylaws back, they’re gone, and we’re back to the old bylaws. “My recommendation would be to pause, and don’t take any action, purposefully,” to let Goodwin go back to the drawing board.
Cavanagh stated he heard what the public wants. Cavanagh moved to reject the bylaws and send them back to the planning commission. Flemming seconded the motion. Prouty agreed in favor, while Dale opposed. The motion passed to reject the bylaws, with applause from the audience.
The Londonderry Selectboard meets on the first and third Mondays, at 6 p.m.