Weathersfield Planning Commission Meeting - December 20, 2025
Weathersfield Planning Commission Meeting - December 20, 2025
The Weathersfield Planning Commission met on December 20, 2025, to approve prior meeting minutes, review draft maps for the town plan update, discuss Act 250 tier designations, and finalize the energy chapter and PUC review. Key presentations were made by Ryan (regional planner) and Jason (town planner), with extensive board deliberation on map consistency, state mandates, and future land use categories.
Approval of Minutes - December 1, 2025
- Members discussed corrections to the December 1, 2025 minutes, including clarifications on open meeting law discussions, de minimis wireless communication tower language, and noting the departure of Chair Joseph at approximately 6:00 PM and Mike taking over as chair. The minutes were amended accordingly.
- Vote: Motion to approve minutes with corrections passed 4-1 (one abstention).
Draft Regional Future Land Use Map, Act 250 Tiers, and State Designation Programs
- Ryan presented the draft regional future land use map, explaining that categories are mandated by state law. The map impacts Act 250 jurisdiction and tier designations (Tier 1A, 1B, 2, 3).
- Discussion focused on Tier 3 (higher regulation for sensitive areas) and the potential for Tier 1B in the Scutney Village area, which would exempt housing projects up to 50 units from Act 250. Limitations include an expired town plan and water capacity issues.
- Concerns were raised about state mandates conflicting with local vision. Speakers expressed frustration that the state is pushing density in village centers while rural areas face additional restrictions.
- The board reviewed the draft map for Weathersfield, noting discrepancies such as a parcel shown as conservation that is actually developed. Jason provided context on how rural categories (general, agriculture/forestry, conservation) are determined, emphasizing the need for local input to refine boundaries.
- Discussion included questions about representation of industrial/commercial areas (e.g., gravel pits, highway commercial) and the absence of aquifer designations on the regional map. Board members requested adding aquifer zones and better labeling of white space.
- No formal vote was taken on the map; Ryan will incorporate feedback for further review.
Town Plan Maps: Current Land Use, Planning, and Future Land Use
- Jason presented several maps for the town plan update: current land use (point-based vs. area-based), a planning map with overlays, and a simplified future land use map.
- Board members preferred the area-based current land use map for spatial clarity but also valued the detailed point map. They asked for both maps to be included in the appendix.
- Discussion included potential expansion of the state-designated village center in Scutney and Perkinsville to unlock tax credits and future Tier 1B eligibility. Board members agreed to revisit this as a separate effort.
- Jason will update maps with requests (label white space, add aerial imagery, refine boundaries) for the next meeting.
Energy Chapter - Final Draft
- Jason presented the streamlined energy chapter (draft 25.12.11-R2), with redundant language removed and goals/actions reorganized. The chapter is now simpler and aligns with the PUC review section.
- Vote: Motion to approve the energy chapter as final draft passed unanimously (5-0).
PUC Review Section - Final Draft
- The PUC review section (draft 2025.0.12.02 R1) was discussed. Minor redundancies were noted and will be removed. Board members agreed the section is thorough and ready for selectboard review.
- Vote: Motion to send the PUC review as final draft to the selectboard passed unanimously (5-0).
Other Business
- The board discussed the timeline for town plan adoption, estimating a hearing in late February or March 2025 after finalized maps and sections.
- Members noted the passing of two prominent community members, Jim Wimberg and Gene Adams.
- The next meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2026, where the board will conduct a strategic planning session for upcoming zoning bylaw revisions.
Meeting Transcript
The only thought that I had was if we're going to be talking about the regional future language map, if you wanted, we can move the map discussion up. Yeah, right. I'm not sure because I don't know how in depth we'll get into the maps, but up to you. Um I want to make sure that we get the uh reviews of the other things that we can done too. You think the map's gonna more progressively go into the maps? Um, I don't know what to uh what to expect from the maps. Um it's the first time in the world I'm sort of looking through. So I would like my Jason play everything role in the discussion around. It might be relevant while at least here since we're talking about 10 to number seven. Sure. All right, all paper. Okay, we're moving uh pen to seven. So yeah, pen will be seven. Okay. Um we didn't get to the select board last week when I talked to Brandon. Normally once a meeting on Thursday, it seems going up. So we talked about him on Tuesday. He said it was too late. Uh I'll plan on being in the next one. Um what the board sort of dictates how we go from uh comments and regarding items now on the agenda. Uh moving on to the appearable meeting minutes for December first, two thousand twenty-five. Uh if we want to send the education chapter, because I did we actually have a clean copy of that in review of the last week. Um I think we added that to the wasn't in the package, but the one that I've done at one time. But we did go through it. It wasn't um the one that we looked at wasn't clean, but uh without my only question on that was the uh goals about having like external classes and stuff like that. So um should that be under a separate heading or just continue down in there after everything went on the meeting. Well, this is just minutes. So it was all done already. Um I have no comment on that. Um the other thing there was a quick little sidebar discussion we had anything minutes. Um to me that was sort of confusing the way that was written. Um I'm sorry. Which one was that? 56 Besson 9 from the remote for natural um systemic resources in Dorman. So that was some discussion about what constituted a form. And I'm not sure that's not really pictured in here because what we talked about is for some reason we started talking about you know trying to move ahead with this, and we said well, we could email it and somebody has a comment, but we have to be careful that we don't do three people. So and this doesn't work in my compared to that. Um it's kind of just an informal discussion on that. I'm trying to move towards tracking a little section view. I it I don't we talked about it, so we could just say we can we could just say we have this question about what constitutes uh discussion from on a quorum. What required what's a quorum with a discussion? With three people in email. I mean, since we did we sent it something, I think we should keep something in there, so we should amend that to be a little more clear saying that the commission or the committee recognizes that communication between two members is not a quorum, but I think if it's three members, it constitutes a quantum. Okay, I like the way you were at that. Um maybe you could just discuss the uh open meeting law even to understand you could elaborate if you wanted to on um to clarify um um telephone calls, email communications, let's do it. And then you're just within the work of a lot. I think that sounds for work. That works all right. Stephanie, were you able to count what we were saying about I think Brian, I'm not sure she's here right now, so the audio is not coming through super clearly. Oh, we finally heard you um well, I'll drone on here for a second and let me know how it sounds as I talk away.
openpublica.com