[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6100049,"mediaKeyId","2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b","parentId",2814706,"title","GoodRiches withdraws subdivision; approval will expire without mylar filing, Planning Commission told","audioSeconds",18,"startMs",5023000,"endMs",5041000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b&start=5023&end=5041","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b/thumbnail_5023000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6100049/Vermont/GoodRiches-withdraws-subdivision-approval-will-expire-without-mylar-filing-Planning-Commission-told","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100049-f76f00b64256479dc34d832b3ddc9619/orig.mp4?Expires=1770704354&Signature=UzfecUxJfDUMVoZQphGAPI-Js1onzpP6bDDqNnKA6cwXuuoKgge7k9QhGONiusVtrKT5rgc6o-O6-ODzbB8xfHRId4e8dEVDD7pU-GS598m08Ku3i4pEJnIf6CcFgOhOhH7-5B0as1B6CwSjStPBi6NL6pnw5OJdVX0kfuEOAJ8hzSyY-MBYoSx8LvaunPWJqiRBhAiIqM7kPvBPDiQGIfM~jqVCtG91qGl62P3aTZO3szRNgRjRkHWk~DKaqMioVfY7SXCuTb6bCy431ukQhxSg1GO9LCm4rcqbQkJy1TbQYRcccRWVVtaGwb3JzMlEcVlttvBqdjgzJrN35BzTWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Rutland, Vermont","date","2025-01-02T00:00:00Z","article","Planning staff informed the commission that the applicants known as GoodRiches have elected to withdraw their subdivision and will not file a mylar to finalize the approval. As a result, the previously granted approval will expire and the lots as recorded will remain unchanged.

Staff said the applicants withdrew because they were overwhelmed by neighbor comments and outstanding driveway/access concerns; no new filing will be submitted and no new town action is expected unless the applicants reapply. The commission did not take formal action; staff will record the status as an expired approval when the statutory filing deadline passes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Rutland: January 2nd, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The GoodRiches have decided not to file a mylar to finalize their subdivision approval; planning staff told commissioners the approval will expire and no changes will occur as a result of the withdrawal.","taxTitle","Town of Rutland, Rutland County, Vermont","taxId",69140,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100054,"Rutland commissioners continue review of river corridor ordinance; request clearer definitions, abbreviations and administrative procedures",647,2938000,3585000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b&start=2938&end=3585","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b/thumbnail_2938000.jpg","/articles/6100054/Vermont/Rutland-commissioners-continue-review-of-river-corridor-ordinance-request-clearer-definitions-abbreviations-and-administrative-procedures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100054-3b33130eb26e14e016252a68f1360c12/orig.mp4?Expires=1770704354&Signature=Lolt42lBb101JEOR3zXJQeVq64mmDDQZhlr8W8u-tFTDhcItKFPE38qZdUEE1dY3aJps-ddm11oz426DeYVYZvoBoldizsO9Qc-keu68xGBdGrEag7Hc-DApsnbjdA0N7rgYGK6sv2nfaP40pfyr7YLQW8NxbNU7dx5-2APyMeT82YwPdoNOydutTUAlGqU6pwzdjEmX0uX64aOgh8rlQWMUuHGahOiEedB-AyJG0SzWzleab90r44mDffBdVN45fnHiFNFQ20wfGiVatSMbqAfdeIPhuHthUYUlzWwc4lPHBAgvssndLjv54AqkSx5wB64CZbZN4j15w9~uYHY4qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Rutland Planning Commission reviewed sections 1 through 5 of a proposed river corridor ordinance and agreed to continue the review at a future meeting after clarifying definitions, abbreviations and administrative procedures.

Commission members asked that the ordinance place definitions and abbreviation explanations at the front of the document (rather than at the end) so readers and staff can find them without paging back and forth. Members also urged consistent use of abbreviations and suggested either defining each abbreviation where used or providing a single definitions section up front.

The commission discussed how the administrative officer (AO) would administer the bylaw, noting that the proposed text requires the AO to inspect development, maintain records and enforce the bylaw but does not explicitly state how proactive inspections would be triggered in the absence of a permitting system. Commissioners pointed to the town's current building‑permit thresholds (noting building permits are required for structures over 100 square feet) and to the existing Moon Brook watershed process as a model for complaint‑driven and permit‑triggered review.

Members also raised concerns about the Board of Adjustment's composition: statute allows the select board to appoint a board of adjustment or to use the planning commission, but one commissioner urged that the planning commission should not constitute a majority of the Board of Adjustment to avoid any appearance of partiality when appeals concern planning commission decisions.

The commission asked staff to circulate written comments (including a list of specific questions on figures, the ‘‘gap’’/infill rules, base flood elevation responsibilities and what the model language means in simple terms) to the ordinance drafter before the next meeting. The commission scheduled review of sections 6 and 7, and asked staff to prepare definitions for discussion at the next session.","Commissioners reviewed sections 1–5 of a proposed river corridor ordinance, requested that definitions and abbreviations be moved forward in the document, sought clearer guidance on the administrative officer's role and the Board of Adjustment composition, and scheduled further review of remaining sections.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100059,"Rutland planning commission advances Pine Hill Park grant work as full application invited; commissioners discuss flooding, design and budget",576,1493000,2069000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b&start=1493&end=2069","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b/thumbnail_1493000.jpg","/articles/6100059/Vermont/Rutland-planning-commission-advances-Pine-Hill-Park-grant-work-as-full-application-invited-commissioners-discuss-flooding-design-and-budget","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100059-2777fd2f29c090d12a67e2eb85a6401d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770704355&Signature=KfRMARQBID9rA6YxGWNOpTBue7OAmpsUvfRIumbS8qKjKNk5z6DetM9y2mh9xcz9i-TGHPQpyCO~xV9l66jKJwXapBNfO7AMAzAIhKUZUieoivaw4U8FlcCDGySwbcGHV2KBerqF1ZjlPbf2i3vwcAQImWhq~HDlRttlJCLzqcOpt99Mu93V0z1kb43eW52ahAk1VCxMbIgmFqjGDDIQjuf2XY3Dta0rUoDJhd18Le88KVW5zFo2o8yYrMSs~eeOVrqs6TZJDvQVkMzOoSKRZj5mlpUjPyigMnnLyOaK2NqoVJhQCYsta7cQnThOaXiWqATq5XenF7xhpPxoo2bVLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town of Rutland planning staff reported that the Pine Hill Park project cleared an initial review and the town has been invited to submit a full application for a federal grant administered through the state-level Forest, Parks & Recreation program.

Staff described new application requirements that focus on climate resilience and flood‑hazard planning. Commissioners and staff reviewed proposed maintenance commitments for park features, procedures for closing the site after major flooding, invasive species management, and construction and maintenance roles for town crews and contractors. The design presented to the commission no longer includes a kayak launch; staff said the launch had been removed because of river currents and right‑of‑way constraints.

On scope and cost, staff said the total project cost under the current design is approximately $41.65 million and that the town is seeking roughly $31.75 million from the grant with a town match of about $999,900. Commissioners asked for clearer budget text for the application and noted the town included $3,500 in the budget to cover a possible archaeological review. Staff also said the application requests funding for project administration (an 80‑hour project coordinator), contracted trail builders and landscapers to handle invasive species, and use of town equipment for selective tasks such as vegetation removal and parking improvements.

Commissioners discussed practical flood‑safety steps for the park, including siting picnic tables on higher ground or using anchored tables, temporary closure procedures, and whether to add solar‑powered or volunteer‑deployed flood warning signs. Staff said the grant application deadline is January 31 and that the town will continue working with state staff to address the new climate‑resilience form and endangered‑species questions that were highlighted in review comments.

The commission did not take a vote on the application itself at the meeting; staff will continue preparing the full application and follow up with Forest, Parks & Recreation and the town highway and emergency management staff as needed.","Town staff said the federal park grant administered through Forest Parks and Recreation advanced past the preliminary stage and the town was invited to submit a full application; commissioners discussed flood‑hazard risks, maintenance commitments, removal of a planned kayak launch and the current budget and match figures.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100064,"Rutland planning commissioners ask applicant to clarify Belco‑Thomas parcel maps before approving Lot sale",1253,97000,1350000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b&start=97&end=1350","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2814706-9ada5be210aa75453a08e3424d0ab29b/thumbnail_97000.jpg","/articles/6100064/Vermont/Rutland-planning-commissioners-ask-applicant-to-clarify-BelcoThomas-parcel-maps-before-approving-Lot-sale","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100064-35ac950a6d6f5a36960834ee98df5a05/orig.mp4?Expires=1770704355&Signature=L70JYxl94fTmbBomBsWXQeETb~-8OKskQVIaKXN78x~5gxT2WDJ3uIVigg8OPGOflyHeO2y4K0-2ZN6DrnnVC7uhW8~7DXN0O2wQH5rC5NAstXvzbBFzscpTCCkk~CwXqJayv-bDSe3geNo-HobBJWHK1rDOS7ol4CLUiwT0o7~ejekjxz6reiFnf~UcmLmXGD0Q4KJOVnyYv~1y532TN-WcasHBujnRhLZbmuWwShWJtnPeUZhOuwfYnQuJT5ft48~NEdZPIXFkfiL~cWzobI7LmbbAxB2tM7b17okqy6T6yYV5rMg8I6gFz7EmmmXQj2giQdGCTRdwPP7cwpxy2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Town of Rutland Planning Commission voted to ask the applicant for the Belco‑Thomas subdivision to appear at a future meeting with clearer maps and a written explanation of the relief being requested before the commission will say whether further town subdivision approval is required.

Commissioners said the materials the commission received — including two exhibits and a recent letter from Jim Goss — were not legible enough to determine whether the configuration shown on Exhibit B would require formal subdivision approval or only a boundary line adjustment. Members discussed multiple parcel‑map versions, a small rectangular parcel near the reserve center and whether Parcel 2 provides legal access to the Army Reserve parcel that uses the access corridor.

Commissioners noted that town parcel records and the submitted exhibits do not align. One member said the town parcel map appears to be missing a line that should divide Lot 1 from Lot 4. Another said the applicant appears to have consolidated ownership under a single entity and that change may have created the confusion over which parcels provide access to the reserve center. Because of those discrepancies the commission declined to treat the letter as an automatic OK to proceed.

The commission adopted a motion requesting that Jim Goss (the applicant) appear at the next meeting and provide materials that clearly show the parcel boundaries, the anchoring reference on the survey, and the specific relief he is seeking from the town (for example, confirmation that no additional subdivision approval is required or a description of a boundary‑line adjustment). The commissioners also asked staff to tell the applicant to bring legible, printable maps and to be available in person to walk through the changes.

The motion was moved by Norman and seconded by Howard; all members present voted in favor. The commission agreed to place the matter back on the agenda when the applicant can attend.","Planning commissioners reviewed application materials for the Belco‑Thomas subdivision and voted to require the applicant to appear with clearer maps and an explanation before the commission will confirm whether additional town subdivision approval is needed for Lot 1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

GoodRiches withdraws subdivision; approval will expire without mylar filing, Planning Commission told

Rutland commissioners continue review of river corridor ordinance; request clearer definitions, abbreviations and administrative procedures

Rutland planning commission advances Pine Hill Park grant work as full application invited; commissioners discuss flooding, design and budget

Rutland planning commissioners ask applicant to clarify Belco‑Thomas parcel maps before approving Lot sale