Zoning Bylaw Nonconformance

Designated Village Centers within Bennington Co, VT

Purpose

This research examines the dimensional requirements of town bylaws throughout the county of Bennington in comparison to remote measurements taken per town center parcel as seen on orthoimagery. These measurements and conclusions of high nonconformance to current bylaws provide precedent to consider revision of bylaws in accordance with both existing measurements as well as town goals, such as new construction following historic trends. With many town centers being local historic focal points of walk-ability, the revision of bylaw to reinforce this atmosphere within village centers has ramifications promoting local business and general livability.

Methodology

Each parcel within the designated village center being studied was evaluated against its dimensional standards (found in town bylaws) as set for the zoning district where it is found. These remote measurements were taken over high resolution satellite imagery.

General example of methods followed, where the bylaw dimensional requirements seen here are for the town of Arlington. Each town has unique dimensional requirements.

General example of methods followed, where the bylaw dimensional requirements that this parcel complies with is specific to the town of Arlington. Each town has unique dimensional requirements.

Nonconformance Map Tour

Arlington Village Center

Arlington Village Center. Click to expand.

81.2% of parcels within Arlington Village Center had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with over half of the village center parcels not conforming with minimum lot size and/or side setback requirements.

East Arlington Village Center

East Arlington Village Center. Click to expand.

84.4% of parcels within East Arlington Village Center had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 81.2% of parcels not conforming to the minimum side setback requirement.

Shaftsbury Village Center

Shaftsbury Village Center. Click to expand.

89.7% of village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with two-thirds not conforming with front yard setback for their relative zoning district.

South Shaftsbury Village Center

South Shaftsbury Village Center. Click to expand.

81.1% of village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 64.2% of parcels not conforming with the side setback requirement.

North Bennington Village Center

North Bennington Village Center. Click to expand.

85.7% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 82.5% not conforming with the minimum side setback.

North Pownal Village Center

North Pownal Village Center. Click to expand.

71.4% of parcels have at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 63.4% of parcels not conforming with its required side yard setback.

Pownal Center Village Center

Pownal Center Village Center. Click to expand.

69.2% of parcels have at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 52.8% of parcels not conforming with the side yard setback requirement.

Pownal Village Center

Pownal Village Center. Click to expand.

60% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 45.8% of parcels not conforming with the required side yard setback.

Peru Village Center

Peru Village Center. Click to expand.

88.9% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 86.7% of parcels not conforming to the required front and/or side setback.

Village of Manchester Village Center

Village of Manchester Village Center. Click to expand.

90.2% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with over half of the parcels not conforming with lot size, lot width, front yard, or side yard.

East Dorset Village Center

East Dorset Village Center. Click to expand.

87.5% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 81.2% of parcels not conforming with the required side yard setback.

Rupert Village Center

Rupert Village Center. Click to expand.

84.2% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 52.9% of parcels not conforming with the accessory side setback requirement.

West Rupert Village Center

West Rupert Village Center. Click to expand.

Half of the village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 44.4% not conforming with the accessory side setback requirement.

Town of Manchester Village Center

Town of Manchester Village Center. Click to expand.

51.8% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 25.4% of parcels not conforming with the side setback requirement.

Arlington Village Center

81.2% of parcels within Arlington Village Center had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with over half of the village center parcels not conforming with minimum lot size and/or side setback requirements.

East Arlington Village Center

84.4% of parcels within East Arlington Village Center had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 81.2% of parcels not conforming to the minimum side setback requirement.

Shaftsbury Village Center

89.7% of village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with two-thirds not conforming with front yard setback for their relative zoning district.

South Shaftsbury Village Center

81.1% of village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 64.2% of parcels not conforming with the side setback requirement.

North Bennington Village Center

85.7% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 82.5% not conforming with the minimum side setback.

North Pownal Village Center

71.4% of parcels have at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 63.4% of parcels not conforming with its required side yard setback.

Pownal Center Village Center

69.2% of parcels have at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 52.8% of parcels not conforming with the side yard setback requirement.

Pownal Village Center

60% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 45.8% of parcels not conforming with the required side yard setback.

Peru Village Center

88.9% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 86.7% of parcels not conforming to the required front and/or side setback.

Village of Manchester Village Center

90.2% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with over half of the parcels not conforming with lot size, lot width, front yard, or side yard.

East Dorset Village Center

87.5% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 81.2% of parcels not conforming with the required side yard setback.

Rupert Village Center

84.2% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 52.9% of parcels not conforming with the accessory side setback requirement.

West Rupert Village Center

Half of the village center parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 44.4% not conforming with the accessory side setback requirement.

Town of Manchester Village Center

51.8% of parcels had at least one bylaw nonconformity, with 25.4% of parcels not conforming with the side setback requirement.

General example of methods followed, where the bylaw dimensional requirements seen here are for the town of Arlington. Each town has unique dimensional requirements.

General example of methods followed, where the bylaw dimensional requirements that this parcel complies with is specific to the town of Arlington. Each town has unique dimensional requirements.