http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS/509160382/1002/NEWS01
Zoning plan criticized among confusion
September 16, 2005
By SANDI SWITZER Herald Correspondent/
WALLINGFORD — The heat was on a South Wallingford industrial zone during a lengthy Planning Commission hearing this week to review proposed zoning regulations.
A crowd of more than 75 people gathered Monday on the second floor of Town Hall to offer comments regarding the updated zoning regulations proposed by town planners.
Many issues were raised during the two-hour hearing, but no topic generated more heat than the proposed industrial district on the south side of town.
More than a dozen people at different points of the meeting questioned why planners had expanded the South Wallingford industrial zone.
Some residents expressed concerns regarding the potential adverse impacts on nearby property values should the existing industrial site be allowed to expand.
"What is it going to do for the town of Wallingford by stripping that hillside more than it already is?" Dennis Roy asked commissioners.
Others asked whether a major landowner in that district — Omya Inc. — had requested an expansion of the industrial zone.
However, commission members said they had made no plans to expand the industrial zone.
"We did not decide as a board to expand any of the lands for industrial use in South Wallingford," planner William Scranton explained.
Confusion over the issue stemmed from possible errors in the commission's new map outlining the various municipal districts.
It was suggested the map included the Stafford farm — currently zoned agricultural-rural/ residential — in the proposed South Wallingford industrial district.
According to proposed zoning regulations, the official zoning map "shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of land and water areas."
Commission chairwoman Melissa Whitmore told the crowd planners would re-examine the issue to determine if map alterations were needed.
Other proposed regulations including planned unit developments (PUD) and required acreage for building lot sizes drew numerous comments.
Gordon McCouch suggested PUDs could lead to "pork-chop subdivisions" that may affect property values.
He also questioned a proposed regulation requiring "one principal building" per lot in all districts, with the exceptions of compact subdivisions and working farms.
McCouch said under the proposed regulations he would be unable to construct a second dwelling on his land for his children. "I think that is unfair," he added.
Whitmore responded town planners debated many of the same topics while updating zoning regulations over the past six years.
Commission member Jay Kenlan noted many of the proposed changes — including building lot sizes — were the result of compromises among town planners.
He said the commission was made up of individuals concerned with property rights, scattered development, and preservation of open land.
Kenlan said PUDs would offer benefits for cluster developments in certain areas of town. "It's a trade-off to preserve open space," he explained.
Kenlan also indicated the Planning Commission had given considerable thought to proposed zoning changes for boundaries, uses and districts.
"If we didn't see a real substantial reason for change, it didn't get changed," he said.
Throughout the remainder of the public hearing, citizens urged planners to reduce building lot sizes in some zones to lessen restrictions on landowners. They also urged commissioners to consider restricting ridgeline development, and to re-examine the village industrial zone.
"I don't think Wallingford wants to be an industrial town. I've never seen any indication of it," Clarice Best said.
The commission must now decide whether to further amend zoning regulations as a result of citizens' comments. Whitmore explained planners would likely schedule another public hearing if further changes were made.
"Thank you all for your questions, and stay tuned," she said.