-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
General misclassification of multi-family #204
Comments
Hi, John!
Thank you so much for all the helpful feedback! This is a great opportunity to clarify what we need to make revisions to the data and how we can best respond to feedback.
Can you clarify the following:
(1) Are the errors you’re reporting coming from local Planners? If so, are they familiar with the methodology and saying that public hearings ARE required? If not, do they possibly mean that conditional use review is required (meaning that we’d need to check that the approval by the municipal panel is also subject to a public hearing)?
(2) Is it possible to confirm that the errors being reported are errors in our data collection for the bylaws with the corresponding approval date? Or is it possible that the errors reflect changes to the bylaws that took effect AFTER we did our analysis?
(3) Would it make sense to just change the value “Allowed/Conditional” to “Allowed Without Public Hearing” for all the districts?
I think we will need to collect this information from people reporting errors: Name, Contact Information (for follow-up questions like the ones above), Effective Date of Bylaws in Conflict with the Atlas Data, Type of Error (e.g., Miscategorized Value or Updated Bylaws), Jurisdiction, District, Rule, Current Value, Corrected Value.
We can discuss this at the upcoming Steering Committee meeting for the benefit of my successor! At this point, for the errors you forwarded, can you let me know the information above so we can make corrections in the right way? If bylaws have changed, for example, I’d archive the old jurisdiction data (versus replacing the data if we’ve just got an error and the bylaws haven’t changed).
Thanks!
Yoshi M. Bird, JD
University of Vermont
Complex Systems & Data Science
Tel: (413) 326-6138
Email: ***@***.***
On Sep 13, 2024, at 10:33 AM, John E. Adams (VCGI) ***@***.***> wrote:
I checked 3 towns (Charlotte, Addison, and Ferrisburg) and it appears fields 3FD / 4FD were misclassified as 'Allowed/Conditional' instead of 'Public Hearing Required'. I suspect other may be misclassified as well.
This is understandable, as the NZA definition of an “Allowed/Conditional” use means that it is allowed without a public hearing - while it means the opposite in Vermont (See 24 VSA § 4414. Zoning; permissible types of regulations<https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/24/117/04414> 3) Conditional Uses are "allowed only by approval of the appropriate municipal panel"
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#204>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWBR5PQWKMO6KFFFAGBKMBLZWLZR5AVCNFSM6AAAAABOFQCXAGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGUZDIOJZGMZDEMA>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Hi @thebestyoshibird - (1) Are the errors you’re reporting coming from local Planners? If so, are they familiar with the methodology and saying that public hearings ARE required? If not, do they possibly mean that conditional use review is required (meaning that we’d need to check that the approval by the municipal panel is also subject to a public hearing)?
(2) Is it possible to confirm that the errors being reported are errors in our data collection for the bylaws with the corresponding approval date? Or is it possible that the errors reflect changes to the bylaws that took effect AFTER we did our analysis?
(3) Would it make sense to just change the value “Allowed/Conditional” to “Allowed Without Public Hearing” for all the districts?
CC @kefortney |
I checked 3 towns (Charlotte, Addison, and Ferrisburg) and it appears fields 3FD / 4FD were misclassified as 'Allowed/Conditional' instead of 'Public Hearing Required'. I suspect other may be misclassified as well.
This is understandable, as the NZA definition of an “Allowed/Conditional” use means that it is allowed without a public hearing - while it means the opposite in Vermont (See 24 VSA § 4414. Zoning; permissible types of regulations 3) Conditional Uses are "allowed only by approval of the appropriate municipal panel"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: