CAPTURE, CLASSIFY, RESPOND: template for responding to comments on the DRAFT 2006 Town Plan, Version 0.6 November 19, 2006
Sorted by Person/Org. [NOTE: As of Nov. 26, DRAFT has been updated to Version 0.8; if reviewing the current version, page numbering and GORP – goals, objectives, recommended policies – may differ]
C=chapter number; G=Goal number; O=Objective number; RP=Recommended Policy number
Key:
a-s = accept, substantive; a-n = accept, non-substantive; d = defer; r = reject; q = it was a question, not a suggestion (no action required other than clarification); d-o = defer for consideration in ordinances; a-m = accept with modification; c = comment
Note: comments sorted roughly according to Draft Plan sequence
# / Date / Venue / Person /Org / Sec. / Comment / r / PC Response /77 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / all / Likes readability and organization of the draft; suggests all ORP be put into the active voice. / a-n / will fix as time allows
13 / 9/27 / EC mtg / Thetford Energy Cmte / all / tables hard to follow because of numbering of GORP / a-n / make table heading repeat on new pages
30 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Chris Levey / all / Reviewed Plan and feels all substantive content from previous Plan has been incorporated. It is most important to move quickly and adopt the Plan. There will be much discussion required to implement the Plan, once adopted. Thanks to PC for their work on the document, it is easier to read. / c
44 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Cyrus Severance
CRJC / all / Plan is far more legible and readable! / c
24 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Mike Pomeroy / all / easier reading, thanks! / c
12 / 9/19 / PC mtg / PC / Intro / include names of PC members / a-n / for permanent record of authors and for comments
51 / 11/2 / Email / Mary Spata / Intro, C1, p.5 / changing "man made" to built as a more gender neutral term / a-n / fixed
52 / 11/2 / Email / Mary Spata / C1 / the notion of Thetford as a "bedroom community" later in the report. While we do serve other towns in the region, I would think there are a sufficient number of people who make their livelihood in Thetford for me to find that term offensive. / a-n / change to read: “Many residents of Thetford commute to the larger economic centers in Hanover, Lebanon and Hartford.”
69 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1 / although I may have overlooked them, I have found no direct considerations of such transient housing businesses [inns, motels, retreats, and bed/ breakfast facilities ] anywhere in the proposed Master Plan. It seems to me that such should not be restricted to the village or commercial districts (which areas are already constricted) and would, in fact, be far more attractive to potential customers if they were not so sited. Perhaps they could be allowed as a conditional use in the rural residential district. / d / See response to Comment #68, Severance
63 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1 / Due to the current lack of specific bounds for the village residential and community business districts (assuming the remainder of land in the town falls into the rural residential district), I strongly urge that the Goals, Objectives and Recommended Policies of this chapter incorporate some mechanism for more positively delineating these district boundaries before the Master Plan is adopted or, at the very least, before resultant revised Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are adopted. / d-o
11 / 9/14 / email / Sally Mansur/ TRORC / C1, C5 / I would strongly encourage you to at least include a very short section on the local economy. / d / Chapter I (Land Use), "Business Development Plan" and following GORP do address this; consider addressing training programs to improve the skills of residents, and services that allow independent elderly to live in town in next plan
41 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Cyrus Severance
CRJC / C1, C5, RP1,2; O56, RP61,73,78, / When and how will the different development regions be delineated? / q / next goal, once we have plan in effect, will work on zoning and by-laws, according to the Plan
2 / 7/5 / PC mtg / Mike Pomeroy / C1, C5, RP5, RP71, RP72, RP113 / 25% slope requirement unreasonable; 3ft rise over 10ft run is acceptable restriction (33%); / a-m / Retain the 25% restriction, but clarify that slope will be measured over a reasonable distance so that it does not preclude structures such as walk-out basements.
62 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, C9 / there seems to be an underlying assumption that all subdivisions of land are for purposes of building construction and I’m not sure that is always the case / d / let’s consider in future
4 / 7/5 / PC mtg / Mike Pomeroy / C1, G1, O3, RP1, G9, / desirability of conservation not defined or constrained: how much should be conserved? At what cost to the town? Plan not specific enough. / d / good question, but out of scope for 2006;. Balance introduced in O45; Plan also relies on Conservation Commission and suggest further information gathering
19 / 9/26 / DRB mtg / DRB / C1, O5, RP10a, RP112 / Recommendations on cluster housing not clear (RP10a:“ For one- and two-family structures, the overall density should not exceed one family per acre in the rural residential zone and one family per quarter-acre in village residential and community business zones. For structures with greater than two units, an additional 15,000 square feet should be required per additional dwelling unit in the rural residential zone and an additional 10,000 square feet per additional dwelling unit in the village residential and community business zone.”) / d-o / agree that a limit should be imposed; will consider in the design of the regulations
79 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, Objectives / incorporate greater integration of commercial and residential development / d / address in next planning cycle
29 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Cyrus Severance / C1, p. 12, O2 / Suggest that the Plan recommend developing an inventory of Connecticut River tributaries, perhaps to be carried out by the Consevation Commission / d / inventory of tributaries exists; more extensive inventories should be considered in future planning
25 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Mike Pomeroy / C1, p. 12, RP5 / 25% slope; many current building w/wlak out basement have 25%+ slope, would eliminate 90% land; also p.49, section 72 / a-m / See Comment #2, Pomeroy
26 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Mike Pomeroy / C1, p. 13, p.70, section10c / no non-owner-occupied rooms shall be leased, would mean no rental units in Thetford unless owner-occupied / d / We may come to agree with this perspective, however, it is clear and has been in the Town Plan for many years. We will review this policy in the next round of planning.
38 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Cyrus Severance
CRJC / C1, p.12, RP 4 / We considered aerial communication tower placement; would we be willing to consider wind generation? should consider somewhere in the Plan, given what is happening in NE Kingdom / d / EC member clarified: energy chapter references “new sources”; EC did not want to be more specific, although respects that idea. PC believes this is a substantive discussion and defers to further planning.
67 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.13 RP10c p.70 RP118 / These recommended policies are almost identical / a-n / will delete 10c, adding additional wording to 118 (good catch!)
68 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.13, RP10c, p.70, RP118 / I am unclear as to the meaning and intent of this suggested ordinance. Does the three-person limitation for rented rooms in owner-occupied dwelling refer to the number of persons occupying each room or to the number of rooms that can be rented? The suggested prohibition against rentals in non-owner- occupied dwellings seems to legislate against all manner of commercial operations such as inns, motels, retreats, and bed/ breakfast facilities-all of which may well be economically viable in the Thetford area. / d / We may come to agree with this perspective, however, it is clear and has been in the Town Plan for many years. We will review this policy in the next round of planning.
[After the Nov. 8 meeting, Stuart supplied additional clarification]
The Zoning Ordinance defines "LODGING OR ROOMING HOUSES: Includes buildings in which separate sleeping rooms are rented providing sleeping accommodations for a total of 15 or less persons, either on a transient or permanent basis; with or without meals, but without separate cooking facilities for individual occupant except as provided in 1 and 2 family dwellings."
They're allowed as conditional uses in all districts currently.
39 / 10/25 / PC Hear-ing / Nancy Vaughan / C1, p.14, O11-12 / Objectives state that we should target development for E Thetford and expand the E Thetford business district. She asks whether E thetford should be the target, because we can’t really expand the business district without going onto the farm land; The question is why should business development be targeted only to E Thetford? / a-s / edit to read “be designed” in Objective 12
73 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.18 / I was never aware that there is a parking ban in front of Wing’s Store in East Thetford! Certainly, there is no sign indicating such nor is there any physical barrier. Thus, any ban is currently “more honored in the breach than the observance”- especially by trucks of various types. I suggest that these particular issues be more directly addressed in the objectives and policies portion of this chapter. / d
71 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.18 / while I most definitely agree that the vegetation along the verge of the intersection of Houghton Hill Road and Route 113 should be severely trimmed or eliminated, in view of the high accident rate in the area, I query why this has not been done. Whose responsibility is it? / q / ask Road Commissioner
72 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.18 / Of course, much of the sight distance problem at the junction of Houghton Hill and Route 113 is also due to the grade of the state roadbed. Does Thetford have any influence in advocating that the State Highway Dept. remove the “hump” between this intersection and the Thetford Hill church? / q / ask Road Commissioner
75 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.19 / Although the speed limit through the village [E. Thetford] has been lowered, I have observed little concerted effort to enforce it-especially against large, heavily loaded trucks going northward. / c
74 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, p.19 / I would contest the statement that traffic in the center of East Thetford village is “not congested now”. Certainly, at certain times of the day, I have spent several minutes attempting to exit the Post Office parking lot! / r
70 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, P9 rural residential / despite that recently, larger lots appear to be preferred, I seriously question the concept of revising the minimum lot size to five acres,. While purchasers always have the option of buying lots larger than the stated 80,000 s.f. (1.84 A.), increasing the minimum seems to run counter to the plan’s stated goal of providing opportunities for affordable housing. Given the current high real estate prices and ever-increasing property taxes, legislating a higher minimum lot size is to, in essence, “price” lower income persons out of Thetford. / a-s / delete this sentence
82 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP / Many uses can potentially damage groundwater. How do you deal with the spillage of solvents & oils at a garage – personnel or commercial? How about the storage of road salt and its use on roads? / d / there may be coverage outside of Town regs; should be researched to see if there are gaps
80 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP / I agree strongly with the concept of a Conservation overlay... . The question that arises from restricting development on some lands is does this constitute a taking. As a large landowner in town I did not and do not feel it does. Others feel quite differently. Perhaps it is necessary to explore strategies by which landowners are compensated for their “lose”. It may end up being far less expensive than purchasing conservation easements at some future time when the landscape is severely fragmented and land values are extremely high. / d-o
81 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP / Supports water overlay / d-o
65 / 10/29 / Letter / Cyrus Severance / C1, RP10f, p.69 RP 114, O60 / I applaud the outright prohibition of building construction in flood-prone areas because not only do the resultant impervious surfaces such as roofs, access roads and parking areas reduce the natural water-absorption areas these areas provide, but they also increase the speed and volume of run-off water-often with detrimental downstream effects. Unfortunately, Recommended Policy #10 [f] and #114 seem to keep the door open to continued conditional residential development in these areas. / d / Comment is correct, yet addressing this issue will require substantial discussion.
9 / 7/5 / PC mtg / Mike Pomeroy / C1, RP4, C6, O65 / Communication towers - is there State model language on this / d-o / Yes, there is language from Vermont League of Cities and Towns; will consider for ordinance: question from Mike Pomeroy, model communication tower ordinance at http://www.vpic.info/resources/telecom_zbylaw.doc
85 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP6,9 / Screening is appropriate sometimes and not others; it is not appropriate in villages / a-n / add “where appropriate” to end of RP 6 (doesn’t seem to apply to RP9)
86 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP7 / Agreed, suggest changing “natural” to “open space”. / a-n / accept
87 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP8 / Agree, but change to active voice / r / is the active voice, no change required
83 / 11/2 / Letter / Ehrhard Frost / C1, RP-all / supports all RPs in Ch1 (1-12) (some more strongly than others) / c