thebestyoshibird
commented
1 month ago Hi, John et al!
I think we should definitely visit the question of how to deal with revisions at this week’s meeting. The direction the team received (from me, the National Zoning Atlas team, and the methodology) was not to presumptively mark a district as Public Hearing just because it required conditional review (or a site plan), but rather to review the broader regulations to determine whether the conditional review/site plan/etc requirements included in every circumstance a required public hearing (as opposed to, say, a Development Review Board or other entity hearing not open to the public). The same was true for anything marked “P” in a Use table - we had to review what the specific requirements were for the permit or site plan review, not just assume that a Public Hearing WASN’T required.
Encoding the values in the Use Tables would have been much easier but would not have allowed cross-jurisdiction comparison where different jurisdictions had different due process requirements for a particular threshold (e.g., conditional use review, site plan review, other requirements). If we want to add fields that encode the Use Table conventions (P, C, etc), then that could potentially be a machine learning task and could be done relatively quickly for a great number of jurisdictions (provided they have Use Tables in their bylaws). It would be a useful question for the Steering Committee to consider.
Yoshi M. Bird, JD University of Vermont Complex Systems & Data Science
Tel: (413) 326-6138 Email: @.***
On Sep 16, 2024, at 1:44 PM, John E. Adams (VCGI) @.***> wrote:
Per Jacob Hemmerick review (Community Planning & Policy Manager at Department of Housing & Community Development) Kirby’s Highland District appears to allow MF as a permitted use, but requires site plan review (public hearing). See section 13.09. Fields 3FDP & 4FDP should be changed from Allowed/Conditional to Public Hearing.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/VERSO-UVM/VT_Zoning_Atlas/issues/207, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWBR5PTBW3TSTR6QJAQTPJDZW4KIDAVCNFSM6AAAAABOJZKLY2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGUZDSMBXHEZTOMY. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Per Jacob Hemmerick review (Community Planning & Policy Manager at Department of Housing & Community Development) Kirby’s Highland District appears to allow MF as a permitted use, but requires site plan review (public hearing). See section 13.09. Fields 3FDP & 4FDP should be changed from Allowed/Conditional to Public Hearing.