APPROVAL OF MINUTES:   NONE     

Old business:

            Chris handed out a chart, showing the compilation of the charts the committee members filled out as homework after last months meeting.   Staff looked at five of seven charts, (staff did a chart too) and placed in the corresponding field for each use under each zone, how many people thought a particular use in a particular zone should either be allowed by permitted use or allowed by conditional use or not at all.  

            Home gardens came up when discussing crop farming.  Upon review of the first few uses vs. zones, much discussion took place about what is allowed as personal use by right without the need for a permit and what is commercial.  One suggestion was to place an income value on whether a uses is personal or commercial basis.  In the end, it was decided a second definition was needed to allow for personal agricultural.  Carl suggested taking out the maple sap production and put something in the ordinance stating that all personal home gardens are permitted and tapping maple threes and boiling sap are permitted anywhere. 

Therese suggested using whatever is used to determine what a working farm is by the state. 

Therese will email Chris the specifics as to what it takes to become a recognized farm in the State of Vermont. 

            Questions where asked and discussion followed whether to allow crop farming and/or livestock farming in an industrial zone.  Some felt it might be alright to allow the pasturing of animals and crop farming while the land is not being used as an industrial use.  Therese was hesitant to allow a use that was not intended to be there only because the land is vacant.  She questioned what would happen if the land continued to be used for the unintended purposed when the intended purpose may need the land and may then be prevented from utilizing the land. 

            A proposal was made to allow the farming in an industrial zone by conditional use but with a stipulation written into zoning that would not allow for any structures associated with the farming use. 

            During review of Greenhouse Commercial, a discussion took place while looking at the industrial zone that often time manufactures also have small retail store as part of the business.  It was suggested to allow a gift shop as an accessory use.  

            Farm Stands were discussed, even though it was not included on the list of uses and zones chart.  There is a definition for farm stands and the committee decided to allow farm stands as an accessory use to an approved crop farming use. 

            Multi-family dwellings created discussion as to whether multi-family dwellings should be allowed in low density residential.  Charlie thought it would be a waste of land not to allow especially existing homes to be utilized as multi-family dwellings.  Carl thought it might be a better use of land.  Therese stated for the most part low density zoning won’t have access to water, sewer, paved roads, etc.  and that is why typically multi-family dwellings are found in the higher density zones.   Chris advised that the current zoning allows multi-family dwellings in the low density zones but only up to four in an existing house and only two in a new house.

            Carl suggested that if we would like to allow some multies in rural areas, then maybe we should build in design standards that would require any new structures for multi-family uses to be build to look like single-family residences.  In addition, we could require them to provide garage space for all the vehicles.  Therese questioned whether the design made any difference.  She feels the problem is outside with extra traffic, more going on in the yard, and more potential for accumulation of junk.  Carl stated his reasoning was to try to make the structures all look within the character of the neighborhood.  Carl references the Whitcomb house in East Barre for an example.     

            Therese stated her feeling is the multi-family dwellings should be where water and sewer are available.  Charlie felt that if somebody had the ability to create additional living units within their dwellings than we should allow them to do so.     

            Chris questioned whether or not the committee was at a stalemate and whether this needs to be discussed at a public hearing or not.  The committee generally felt that they could come up with something and wanted to look at multi-family dwellings in low density residential again. 

new business:

OTHER: 

            The committee agreed to hold their next meeting on Wednesday, April 28, 2004   

FOLLOW-UPS:

ADJOURN:   

                             Motion by:

                                    Second by: ??????????

                                                                All in favor                                   

________________________________                   _________________________________
Mark Nicholson                                                                 Therese Ackerman

________________________________                    _________________________________
Mark Scott                                                                           Margaret Hutchins

________________________________                    _________________________________
Charles Woodhams                                                            Ruth Finn