CHESTER, Vt. – The Chester Selectboard hearing on rezoning the rural districts, held on Dec. 18, began with Planning Commission Chair Hugh Quinn explaining the changes made to the proposed Unified Development Bylaws since the previous hearing in late October.
“We’ve removed the density-based zoning, and put back in fixed lot size zoning for the five-acre zone, which is now called ‘Conservation Rural 5,’ and we put back three-acre fixed lot size zoning for what was R-120, which is now being called ‘Rural 3-acres.'” The remaining recommendations, Quinn said, were not changed. This included setback requirements in these two zones, as well as changes along Route 10 discussed at the previous meeting.
Several Chester residents, as well as board members, expressed confusion that the proposed setback requirements had not been reverted to their unamended specifications. “I was under the understanding that we were just going to go back to what we had originally,” said resident Amy Mosher. Her sentiment was echoed by resident Derek Suursoo, and board member Lee Gustafson, who all believed that the direction given by the selectboard to the planning commission at the previous hearing had included leaving the setback requirements of the districts unchanged from their previous specifications. Both zones currently have 50-foot setback requirements on all sides, and in both cases the proposed setbacks were reduced to 40 feet of front yard setback, and 30 feet of side and rear yard setback. The lot frontage and lot coverage in the Rural 3-acre (current R-120) district also had proposed alterations, from 200 feet to 150 feet of lot frontage, and from 10% to 20% lot coverage.
Gustafson questioned planning and zoning administrator Preston Bristow on the impetus for the proposed setback changes. Bristow responded that the proposed setbacks had been reduced, “Simply because it’s a frequent problem that people have a hard time getting a 50-foot setback.” Often, Bristow said, this is due to the geology or other factors within a lot that limit its buildable area, but could also be due to nonconforming lots which had been established prior to the introduction of zoning regulations. “The general thinking is, when you relax some of the setbacks…[you’re] giving [people] a little wiggle room,” Quinn explained.
Board Chair Arne Jonynas, who supported the proposed zoning changes, admitted that his house was situated on such a nonconforming lot, claiming he is unable to put up a shed due to the setback regulations. In general, Jonynas said he felt that restrictions on what people can do with their land are unduly onerous on landowners.
The tone of the meeting became increasingly tense as it unfolded. When Chester resident Brian Mosher, speaking via Zoom, suggested that, “Maybe the chairman should just be happy with his property, and…maybe he should build his shed…where it conforms,” Jonynas had his microphone muted before he had finished speaking. Lori Quinn, wife of Planning Commission Chair Hugh Quinn, spoke in defense of the proposed changes, saying that, “It’s frustrating to me to see people, at the very last minute, come up with what seem to be technical little wordings to stop this from moving forward.”
Despite this, several members of the board remained unconvinced that the changes should be approved as-is, including Arianna Knapp, who said she had been prepared to pass the changes when she had arrived at the meeting. However, as the discussion unfolded, Knapp found herself wondering what problem the changes were intended to solve. “Have any of us seen or heard anything where we say we absolutely have to make changes to zoning?” she asked.
Board member Peter Hudkins also took issue with Jonynas’ assertion that zoning laws can be revisited in the future if the changes are not working as intended. “I’ve worked with too many developers,” Hudkins said, “Thinking you’re going to fix it after somebody put something in there is like, it’s too late.”
When it became clear that the motion would fail, the board elected to table the issue until their Jan. 2 meeting, to allow members to consider their vote, as well as what direction to give the planning commission should the proposed changes fail to pass. Hugh Quinn spoke one final time to the board, saying he would like clear direction on what the planning commission should do, even if their direction is to make no changes and revert all specifications in the two districts to their previous values.
The Chester Selectboard will meet next on Thursday, Jan. 2, at 6:30 p.m., at the Chester Town Hall.