MEMBERS PRESENT:       Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Daren Jorgensen, Kate Lalley, Ronald Bouchard. (Sam Chauncey and Tucker Holland were absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            None.

Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Dean Pierce briefly reviewed the amendments and explained the update was done to ensure Shelburne’s regulations conform to the federal regulations. The flood hazard regulations are on the town’s webpage.

 

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. There were no comments from the public. Dean Pierce explained the map change is due to changes to the zoning regulations in Phase 2 relative to the Rural PUD. Shelburne Farms is the only property presently affected. With the amendment the Plan (Map 5 – Composite Future Land Use) and the zoning map are now in sync. The rural district portion increases and the conservation portion decreases.

 

 

 

Dean Pierce reported the Selecboard adopted the zoning revision package known as “Phase 2” with the exception of reference to requiring an applicant to submit as part of a site plan application a traffic study when their development would generate 25 or more trips in the peak hour. The discussion with the Selectboard was more of the number of trips rather than the concept of the traffic study, said Mr. Pierce. The site plan regulations and conditional use regulations contain information on what would be required in a traffic study. The Selectboard’s inclination is to use the number that matches the state’s number of 75 trips. The Selectboard recognized that if the number of trips is changed in the regulations (substantive change) than additional public hearings would be required on the zoning changes so the Selectboard decided to exclude Section 1900.2.I and ask the Planning Commission to reconsider the number of trips. The Selectboard also made a wording change (‘plantings’ to ‘landscaping’ in Section 1900.5.B.4) which was not a substantial change. Another topic identified by the Selectboard for further consideration by the Planning Commission is the front yard setback requirement for larger parcels in the Mixed Use zone, stated Mr. Pierce.

 

There was discussion of the number of trips triggering a traffic study (Sections 1900.2 and 1900.9). Brian Precourt asked if the threshold pertains to new development only. Dean Pierce clarified if review other than administrative review is triggered than the traffic study will be required. It was also clarified that a change of use is not one retail operation for another retail operation, but an office operation to a retail operation, for example, is a change of use which would trigger a traffic study. Dick Elkins noted the Development Review Board has latitude to request a traffic study. Brian Precourt suggested “use” be changed to “new use”. Daren Jorgensen observed it seems absurd an existing use that produced 300 trips and a new use proposing to generate 75 trips would require a traffic study. The requirement for a traffic study should be if there is an increase of 75 trips for the new use, said Mr. Jorgensen. Brian Precourt suggested not stating a number and giving the DRB discretion in determining whether a traffic study is needed.  Dean Pierce noted VTrans policy says a traffic study shall be done if a use results in 75 trips in the peak hour. It was mentioned that South Burlington uses additive trips as a guideline. Dick Elkins suggested using 75 trips and allowing the applicant to request a waiver. There was further discussion of the threshold to trigger a traffic study. Dean Pierce suggested the language read: “A detailed traffic impact analysis is required for any application that is expected to add 75 or more peak hour AM or PM vehicle trip ends to the transportation system. The requirement for a traffic impact study may be waived by the DRB upon a finding that the application will have a diminimus impact on congestion and safety.” The Planning Commission concurred with the suggested language. Brian Precourt asked if a proposed development can be built if an intersection goes below level of service “D”. Dean Pierce clarified a signalized intersection has an overall level of service, not just one approach.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the Commerce & Industry and Commerce & Industry South districts and that Section 1220.13 is not inconsistent with Section 1220.5 relative to Commerce & Industry South. Section 1220.5 states conditional uses in the district, but Section 1220.13 indicates another facet being added to the conditional use must be reviewed by the DRB. Per the definition of ‘accessory use’ in Section 2110.3 the accessory use must be a small portion of the main use. Section 1210 lists permitted uses in Commerce & Industry South. Section 1210.12 speaks to accessory uses to a permitted use. Dick Elkins noted the language is also in the section listing conditional uses and this should remain as such. Dean Pierce explained ‘accessory uses’ are thought of as a part of the primary use. The Selectboard is asking to have Enclosed Light Manufacturing as a permitted use, rather than a conditional use. Following further discussion the Planning Commission felt the existing language is acceptable. Kate Lalley recalled the Planning Commission specifically decided to keep Commerce & Industry and Commerce & Industry South separate because Commerce & Industry South has a different character and is pristine compared to Commerce & Industry. Conditional uses are wanted so the DRB can have more input on what happens in Commerce & Industry South. Ron Bouchard agreed with Ms. Lalley’s statements about Commerce & Industry South and Commerce & Industry being separate areas with separate concerns so the same rules and conditions should not be applied. Dick Elkins commented conditional uses are not anti-business. If the criteria are met by a proposal it can be anticipated the proposal will go forward.  Daren Jorgenson disagreed, stating requiring conditional use approval means there is more of a process to go through and it is provocative. There is a stigma. There was continued discussion of the zoning for Commerce & Industry South and Commerce & Industry. Dick Elkins again mentioned the opinion of some that Shelburne has an anti-business and anti-growth position, but pointed out the regulations were changed to increase lot coverage (by 20%) and significantly decrease setbacks to attract businesses to town. Ron Bouchard commented the Planning Commission is empowered to balance the benefit to the town as a whole, not just one citizen. Following further discussion the Planning Commission agreed not to combine Commerce & Industry South with Commerce & Industry as these areas are completely different. There was also agreement to have additional review of permitted uses in the northern section (Commerce & Industry) and conditional uses in the southern section (Commerce & Industry South). It was suggested the position of the Planning Commission on the two areas be explained to the Selectboard in a joint meeting or via written statement (mission statement outlining what is envisioned for the area and the characteristics and features to be preserved).

 

There was continued discussion of the Commerce & Industry zones and the phrase “testing offices and laboratories” which is in the definition section as “research and testing laboratories”. The Planning Commission agreed the term that is defined should be used in the document. There was discussion of what is meant by ‘outdoor recreation facilities with minor accessory structures’. Dean Pierce explained the language allows a park with benches, but not a baseball field, for example. The Planning Commission agreed the language should allow minor accessory structures.

 

The Planning Commission discussed having the language in the catch all provision (Section 1020.41) apply to the Commerce & Industry zones. Daren Jorgensen observed the intent of the section is to give the DRB discretionary ability to evaluate against an existing list of uses to see if a new use conforms in character and form. Mr. Jorgensen spoke in favor of adding the provision to the Commerce & Industry zones. Dean Pierce pointed out standards need to be fleshed out for “same functional and physical character” and to know what is meant by “not detrimental”. The Planning Commission agreed more qualitative criteria are needed. Staff will draft some language for consideration.

 

There was discussion of the phrase ‘surrounding neighborhood’ in Section 1540.3(B)(2). Daren Jorgensen suggested simplifying the statement by replacing “other nearby structures or the surrounding neighborhood” with “of the district”. Dean Pierce pointed out the Shelburne Historic Preservation Committee may not feel ‘surrounding neighborhood’ means the entire district, but rather is the area around a proposed development. Kate Lalley suggested changing ‘historic qualities’ to ‘historic context’ and having the sentence read “…context of the overlay district” because this speaks to the pattern of development, street fabric, open spaces, space between buildings, and quality of rooftops, for instance.

 

Drafting a definition of “suitable fence” was discussion. Brian Precourt felt the DRB should have the discretion to determine what is suitable for a site. The Planning Commission concurred. The Planning Commission also agreed to have the words “residential and religious use” in Sections 1900.5.B.3 and 1900.5.4 and delete the word “educational”.

 

There was discussion of Section 1900.9.B and adding “at appropriate calendar and daily time periods as determined by the DRB”. Dean Pierce noted the peak hour is analyzed and that is the 30^th highest hour whenever that occurs. Daren Jorgensen pointed out the suggested language is confusing a level of service study which has a specific methodology to measure a peak hour time period for the breadth of the year versus a peak vehicle count study. Language is needed to say a traffic study will be done in a realistic time period that looks at the desired peak hours, stated Mr. Jorgensen, and the DRB needs to evaluate whether an applicant performed their traffic counts during the representative time period. Dean Pierce suggested to ensure base data takes place during a certain time of year the language could read “…if directed, traffic counts shall be conducted at a time of year and/or time of day as determined by the DRB.” Staff will draft language as a new paragraph for consideration.

 

The Planning Commission concurred with stating “Village Center District” rather than “Village Center Mixed Use District” in Section 1900.9.B, and rewriting the first sentence in Section 1910.4.G to read “Before an applicant can receive conditional use approval s/he must demonstrate the proposed conditional use will…” It was noted the language that was deleted in Section 1920.1.D relative to nonconforming structures is covered in Section 1920.2.B.1. There was discussion of defining “significant revision” in Section 1920.2.C and agreement that discretion should be used rather than a definition drafted. The Planning Commission did not change the langue in Section 1950.2.J.2 relative to a vehicle salvage operation.

 

Due to time constraints the Planning Commission will consider at the next meeting the remainder of the comments from Gary von Stange (Sections 1960.4, 1975.4.B and 1975.4.C) and language drafted by staff as previously discussed.

 

Deferred until the next meeting.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

 

 

Daren Jorgensen will circulate a report and draft language on underground utilities.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Daren Jorgensen, Kate Lalley, Ronald Bouchard, Sam Chauncey, Tucker Holland.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            None.

Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

Brian Precourt commented the language gives the Development Review Board flexibility in the number of required bicycle parking spaces depending on the development.

 

There was discussion of the regulations addressing light trespass onto adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, including roads and water. In Shelburne Bay lighting on the shore blinds boaters coming into shore. Lights must be shielded. Gary von Stange’s comments suggest the requirement of shielding light over Lake Champlain be removed because the town cannot control lights on docks. There was brief discussion of whether lights on docks are allowed (state may pre-empt if below the 98’ mark and on public water). Ron Bouchard asked if the Planning Commission can limit the wattage of lights allowed.

 

Dean Pierce noted the language specifies that a use have the same character and pattern as those allowed in the district. The use cannot be detrimental to uses already in the area per the features listed (e.g. noise, lighting, odors, traffic).  There was lengthy discussion of the phrase “inherent character” in subsection 1.a (“inherent character of primary activity or activities”) and using more precise language. Dean Pierce clarified the distinction is between the use (e.g. agriculture) and the activities of the use (e.g. growing crops, farm animals, and other agricultural activities). The language should allow something that would have been allowed, but just happens not to be there. Following further discussion the Planning Commission decided to retain ‘inherent character’ in the wording.

 

There was discussion of the language about ‘sharing features with existing legal uses within 500’ of the subject’s property boundary’. Dean Pierce clarified the concern is for what is occurring within the 500’ section regardless of the parcel. Brian Precourt felt the amount of distance should be viewed separately for the Mixed Use, Commerce & Industry, and Commerce & Industry South districts. It was suggested the specified distance be replaced with “adjoining properties located within the same district”. Daren Jorgensen felt the predominant sound levels and qualities need clear definition. Tucker Holland agreed, noting with the current language an existing business that does not generate noise will force a new business to have a lower noise level even though a higher noise threshold is allowed in the district. Daren Jorgensen pointed out a business that is a permitted use would not have to meet the ‘neighbor’ standard while a conditional use would. The noise level should apply the same to any use, stated Mr. Jorgensen. Brian Precourt interjected for conditional use approval the existing review standards must be met.  Tucker Holland suggested architectural standards be added to the criteria list.  Sam Chauncey stated rather than have an applicant show ‘shared features’, the applicant should demonstrate differences. The applicant should bring evidence to the Development Review Board that the existing neighborhood has a certain sound level as compared to the proposed business, for example. Daren Jorgensen suggested the noise criterion be removed since the town’s noise regulations overall must be met. The applicant needs to show the use is comparable to another use rather than show shared qualities, said Mr. Jorgensen. Mr. Chauncey agreed stressing the Development Review Board should be given as much flexibility as possible. Judgment should be made on the differences between the uses, not the likenesses. The Planning Commission defines the parameters while the Development Review Board makes the decision. Dean Pierce stated the Development Review Board needs some qualitative benchmarks to measure against so a judgment can be made. Daren Jorgensen pointed out some standards have already been created (sound, lighting, for example) and the idea is to be comparable, not higher or lower. The word “sharing” in the language is unclear, said Mr. Jorgensen. Dean Pierce advised the Planning Commission may want to ensure there are similar uses rather than simply meeting the performance standard. Mr. Jorgensen questioned the legality of applying different performance standards to a permitted versus a conditional use just because of the category. There was mention of drafting language to cover potential future uses in the district. Brian Precourt suggested language directing the Development Review Board to apply existing review standards for the district so all performance standards are covered. The language could read: “The Development Review Board shall use existing review standards for the district to determine compatibility with adjoining property owners.” Dean Pierce suggested the wording for Section 1020.41.2 read “Such use will not be detrimental to adjoining land uses as measured by compliance with performance standards contained in Article XIX.” The Planning Commission concurred. Brian Precourt suggested the statement be added to the text for the Mixed Use, Commerce & Industry, and Commerce & Industry South districts. Kate Lalley said it would be simpler to refer to the review standards and then specifically address each item in each district.

 

Dean Pierce reviewed other minor edits to the regulations (renumbering and such). In Section 1912, Dick Elkins asked about adding the requirement that ‘as built’ drawings be certified by a Professional Engineer.

 

Staff will incorporate the amendments discussed and redistribute the document to the Planning Commission for review.

 

 

 

Daren Jorgensen explained there are three types of utility lines: transmission, distribution, and tap lines. The Public Service Board has sole jurisdiction with transmission lines. The town has authority with tap lines (the line from the distribution line to a meter). Jurisdiction with distribution lines is a grey area. With a distribution line Public Service Board policy says a municipality can require the line be underground, but the municipality must pay for this. With tap lines, the town can mandate that service in a new subdivision be buried, stated Mr. Jorgensen, but if an existing structure is modified the town cannot mandate that the utility line be buried. There was further discussion of mandating underground utilities and the associated substantial cost, and what the trigger is to require existing properties to bury the line. There could be incremental implementation and substantial improvements could be the trigger. Dean Pierce stated the statute directs the Public Service Board to look at municipal plans. Shelburne was very involved in the VELCO transmission line project. The Town Attorney advises consideration would be given to language saying transmission facilities need to be underground in particularly sensitive situations. There was discussion of cost sharing by the town and utility company to bury lines, and who is responsible for the cost of repairs to lines that are underground. Burlington Electric (captive utility) bears the full cost of repairs in their service area, said Mr. Jorgensen. Other states have established bonding districts for their underground utilities.  Dean Pierce will research regulations in area towns relative to underground utilities.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed recommendations from the Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee, and discussed the logo, sign color(s), and locations. There was agreement the logo should be addressed separately. A more preferable design would be a covered bridge or a round barn. There was mention of having a town wide contest for a logo design. The Planning Commission also suggested a different choice of color for the signs (UVM uses green for their signs). Regarding location, Dick Elkins felt the sign for Shelburne Pond should specify the area is a fishing access so travelers are not misled. Mr. Elkins questioned having a sign for the LaPlatte Nature Park which does not have parking for visitors.  There was support for signs for churches and other spiritual institutions in town though it was suggested the institutions be contacted first before a sign is installed. Regarding the kiosk design, the Planning Commission felt the kiosk is the centerpiece of the sign system and should remain. Dean Pierce will send the comments of the Planning Commission about the signs to the Selectboard.

 

 

 

The Planning Commission will review the questions on the survey prior to the next meeting.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.