CHESTER, Vt. – The July 5 meeting of the Chester Selectboard began with two public hearings; the first on the “administrative” amendment to the town’s unified development bylways, and the second on the “open space” amendment to the same.
The first hearing was the result of previous discussion at the May 3 selectboard meeting, at which the board had taken issue with some of the wording and proposed additions to the bylaws, sending them back to the planning commission for further review before deciding whether to adopt them. Among the more controversial topics from the previous meeting was the proposed addition of language which would have banned living in “self-contained travel trailers,” or campers, in Chester. “In the end, we decided to leave [the proposed bylaw about campers] unchanged,” Preston Bristow, Chester’s zoning administrator and town planner, told the selectboard. “Basically, it’s limiting to two camper trailers on a property…not more than 180 days, and if it’s more than that, then it would be considered a campground.”
Chester resident Lenny Newcomb, a neighbor of Planning Commission Chair Hugh Qinn who owns a metal repair business, expressed concern to the board that his business would be affected by the language of the bylaws concerning campers, and his belief that he was being targeted by the planning commission specifically due to his property’s proximity to Quinn’s. “I have more than two campers on my yard,” he said, explaining that these campers were in his yard awaiting repairs as part of his business. The board was uncertain as to whether or not the bylaw would apply to a business which repaired campers, though both the board and Bristow expressed hesitantly that they did not believe it would be an issue, and ultimately there were no changes made to to the wording of the camper bylaw.
It was also discussed at the previous meeting whether a proposed bylaw allowing two principal structures on a lot was necessary, as the town already had a process in place for allowing such a scenario, called a “planned unit development” (PUD). The PUD requires the approval of the development review board (DRB) and planning commission, while the proposed bylaw would have eliminated these approval requirements. Ultimately, this proposed bylaw was withdrawn, and the process for adding a second principal structure to a lot remained the same, requiring anyone wishing to add a second principal structure to go through the PUD process.
The second hearing, on “open space,” was a new topic of discussion. This bylaw would create a new “open space” district within Chester’s floodplain, in order to attempt to clarify what is and is not permissible within the area of the town which is vulnerable to significant flooding. “It’s a district that we’ve just clearly said ‘this is not an appropriate area for construction of [houses] and businesses,’” Bristow told the board. “We tried very hard to make it clear that civic activities can happen there, that it’s perfectly fine to have a fair or something like that…a baseball dugout, or a fence for a backstop…and certainly agricultural and forestry things are allowed there,” he continued. Affected landowners were sent a map clarifying where the district was, as well as an explanation of the rules for the district, Bristow said, and given an opportunity to send in feedback.
Moving on to a vote on the administrative amendments, there was more dissension regarding the travel trailer amendment. Discussion focused on similar issues to the May 3 meeting, regarding whether or not the rule makes sense given the issue of lack of available housing in Chester, and whether or not passing and not enforcing such a rule sets a bad precedent. “The board had two things that we were very concerned about,” said selectboard member Peter Hudkins, “and the answer from the planning commission was ‘we’re not gonna change them,’ and for me, that’s really a big disappointment.”
Planning Commission Vice Chair Tim Roper responded to Hudkins, noting that the selectboard had given their input to the planning commission as they reviewed the amendments, and the planning commission had “discussed all of these changes at length.” “My sense at the end of that meeting was that we were all in agreement, that yeah, it’s not ideal, but that’s probably the best way to move forward. We don’t want to set up Chester to be a place where…if you don’t have a place to live you can get a travel trailer and set it up in somebody’s driveway in Chester,” said Roper.
Selectboard Chair Arne Jonynas expressed that he felt that continuing to discuss the issue, given all of the discussion which had already taken place, would be a poor use of the planning commission’s time going forward. “I am totally against [sending the amendments back to the planning commission] considering all the work that the planning commission has put into this with input from the selectboard, with input from the public…because we think there might be an alternative way, yet we don’t have…an idea of what that different way could be.”
When the vote was taken, Jonynas voted in favor of the amendment, Hudkins voted against, and members Arianna Knapp and Lee Gustafson abstained. Board member Heather Chase was absent. After more discussion, Gustafson and Knapp voted reluctantly in favor of accepting the amendment.
The open space amendment to the bylaws was adopted without controversy.
Housing commission bylaws were also reviewed, and accepted, with changes made since the previous discussion on June 7. These changes were the number of members, now “between five and nine,” as well as changes to language which some selectboard members felt constituted guarantees of housing to all potential residents which could not or should not be made.
The Chester Selectboard will hold only one meeting in August, with the date to be announced.