Tag Archives: Norwich VT

Why is the Planning Commission going into executive session to discuss the Open Meeting Law?

Posted on by

My listserv post from earlier today. The Planning Commission is holding a special meeting on Friday to discuss a claim by three residents that the Planning Commission violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) in formulating the Town Plan. As I understand the allegation, working groups used by the PC to formulate the Town Plan did not attempt to comply with the OML. The special meeting agenda suggests that this discussion will be held behind closed doors in executive session, rather Continue reading Why is the Planning Commission going into executive session to discuss the Open Meeting Law?→

UPDATE: MCS Septic

Posted on by

A bit of good news regarding the failing septic system at Marion Cross School. Unlike last year, Marion Cross School will not fence off the leach field this winter. Instead, the school plans to pump the storage tanks once a week during the winter, said Tony Daigle, SAU 70 Director of Facilities, at the October 7 Norwich School Board meeting. This pumping should alleviate effluent flowing onto the Green during the colder months. It is not a permanent solution but Continue reading UPDATE: MCS Septic→

DRB denies application for kindergarten/daycare facility on Route 5 North

Posted on by

The Norwich Development Review Board recently denied the application of Tiny Seeds Village LLC to repurpose a residence and pool house into kindergarten and daycare facility. The property is located at 251 Route 5 North, with secondary access from Goodrich Four Corners Road. The parcel’s size is approximately 23 acres. My layman’s reading of the DRB decision is that the Board’s denial was primarily based on shortcomings in the proposal with respect to parking and traffic circulation. The Board also Continue reading DRB denies application for kindergarten/daycare facility on Route 5 North→

[Update] Protect ridgelines or allow solar?

Posted on by

The Norwich Selectboard will not object before the PUC to a solar facility being built in a ridgeline protected area. That position won the day, notwithstanding the community values against such development articulated in the Town Plan. As noted in my original post, the property owner has made no effort to show that the solar facility will have no impact on views. “They haven’t done the work,” said Planning and Zoning Director Rod Francis at the Selectboard meeting. Nevertheless, the Continue reading [Update] Protect ridgelines or allow solar?→

Protect ridgelines or allow solar? Norwich Selectboard may decide at its 9/23 meeting

Posted on by

In the packet for the Norwich Selectboard meeting on Wednesday, September 23 is a filing with the Vermont PUC seeking approval to build a small (in relative terms), ground-based solar panel farm on Tucker Hill Road. See map above. The Net-Metering Application is in the Selectboard packet for 09-23-2020 under correspondence at page 18. Although not obvious in the PUC application, the project is located in a ridgeline protected area designated in the Town’s zoning regulations. I thought ground-based solar Continue reading Protect ridgelines or allow solar? Norwich Selectboard may decide at its 9/23 meeting→

Sewer Working Group violates Open Meeting Law

Posted on by

Whether Norwich constructs a sewer to service the Village and Route 5 South will certainly be a hot button topic, as it has been for years. However, I did not anticipate the first button pushed to be a dispute about the Vermont Open Meeting Law (OML). Sadly, the dispute was easily avoidable, because the Selectboard resolved the same OML question in December 2019. At the end of this post, I think out loud about who decides these public notice issues. Continue reading Sewer Working Group violates Open Meeting Law→

[Update] TRORC dumps Norwich from Regional Energy Coordinator project

Posted on by

In the end, the Norwich Selectboard did not see the regional energy coordinator as an important project. That is my impression from the July 22 Selectboard meeting, as viewed on CATV. Dumped from the project by the Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC), the Board decided to accept the decision and “move on” from the episode. My original blog post on the topic is here. The decision to move on seems a disservice to Norwich voters who approved a specific Continue reading [Update] TRORC dumps Norwich from Regional Energy Coordinator project→

TRORC dumps Norwich from Regional Energy Coordinator project

Posted on by

Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC) has unilaterally dumped the Town of Norwich from the Regional Energy Coordinator pilot project. That decision is apparent from the series of emails in the Selectboard packet for the July 22 meeting, starting at page 153. Norwich’s sin: asking that the seven towns funding the project have a say in its administration. My imperfect understanding is that seven towns banded together to hire a regional energy coordinator as a one year pilot project. Voters Continue reading TRORC dumps Norwich from Regional Energy Coordinator project→

[Update] Think Big Norwich: Why Not Community Geothermal?

Posted on by

One of the reasons I plan to vote against Article 8 is that the Town Facilities Working Group gave no consideration to a geothermal heating district. Unbeknownst to me, the Energy Committee backed the idea of a heating district for the Village in a 2010 report. That report, as well as a pilot project in Massachusetts, are the reasons for this update. Time to dust off that 2010 report and do some legwork! Back in February, I wrote a blog Continue reading [Update] Think Big Norwich: Why Not Community Geothermal?→

Article 8 – voting no, as a renovation project

Posted on by

I posted the following on the listserv today regarding the re-vote on the Tracy Hall geothermal project. Thought I would share it here. Following the listserv post, I add below an additional, out-of-box thought about the Tracy Hall cupola. Listserv post Public officials tout the Tracy Hall geothermal project as a renovation project, primarily because approximately $1 million of the cost is dedicated to improving the ventilation system at Tracy Hall. However, viewed in that light, the project proposal strikes Continue reading Article 8 – voting no, as a renovation project→