    |
  |
        |
|
|
March 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING March 11, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Kate Lalley, Sam Chauncey, Tucker Holland, Daren Jorgensen. (Ronald Bouchard was absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Sally Riley, Diane Olsen, Patricia Ondonchik, John Ondonchik, Mike Serrano, Jeremy Matosky. AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 3. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Zone Change Mike Serrano on behalf of John Ondonchik explained the proposal to build an adult or mature living complex or apartments on the parcel behind the Days Inn in the Pizzagalli complex. The area is zoned Commerce & Industry. The request is to have the residential use added to the uses allowed in the zone. The hotel and adjacent lot are both owned by John Ondonchik. One is zoned Commerce & Industry. The lot could be combined with the rest of the Ondonchik property or the use added to the list of allowed uses. The Ondonchik own property across the street, but the lot is not large enough for the proposal. The land is zoned Commercial-Residential in the front. Following further discussion of the lots, it was clarified there is only one parcel (lot 4) that needs to be rezoned. Daren Jorgenson expressed concern about the lot being residential and surrounded by Commerce & Industry zoned parcels. Dean Pierce outlined the options:
The Planning Commission will take the matter under further consideration when updating the Town Plan. The entire area will be reviewed. Solar Panels Dean Pierce reported an application has been filed for the Hollenbeck property at 823 Shelburne/Hinesburg Road for three solar panels. A map has been requested showing the location of the panels on the property. The Planning Commission has party status and can write to the Public Service Board (PSB) to schedule a site visit or request a public hearing. There will likely be a pre-hearing conference rather than a public hearing. Jeremy Matosky, neighbor to the Hollenbecks, said more information on the exact location of the panels is needed and assurance that the panels will comply with the Town Plan and Scenic Overlay District. The area is on the significant views map. The surrounding land has been put into open space conservation. The concern is the solar panels may impact views. There is a conservation easement on the Hollenbeck lot except for a couple of acres around the house. Mr. Matosky said he will write to the PSB to do a site visit in conjunction with the Hollenbecks. The Planning Commission will do a site visit. The property owner will be asked to stake the proposed location of the solar panels. Daren Jorgenson spoke in support of renewable energy provided it is economical and complies with code. Kate Lalley calculated the scale of the panels is massive, more massive than a conventional billboard. Jeremy Matosky stated each rotating panel is 352 s.f. and will be 26’ in the air. Signs allowed in the district can not exceed 16 s.f. Daren Jorgenson observed the panels as described are like three two-and-a-half story buildings. 4. VILLAGE CENTER COMMERCIAL ZONING The Planning Commission discussed the request by Brianne and Matt Taylor to expand the garage and allow a commercial use. The regulations allow a commercial use with limits if the lot is less than 20,000 s.f., but such commercial activity is limited to the primary structure on the lot. The primary structure can be slightly enlarged. The Taylors proposed to enlarge an accessory structure (garage). Options for the Planning Commission include modifying the zone to allow a commercial use in accessory buildings or decreasing the minimum lot size for a commercial use in the district. There was discussion of decreasing the lot size. Parking could be an issue for businesses on the smaller lots. Daren Jorgenson stated the smaller lot will promote development of parcels that might not otherwise occur which will bring in more businesses and vitality to the village. Kate Lalley agreed, adding there is a fair amount of readily available public parking in the village. Dick Elkins stressed a business should not be depending on use of public parking. In addition, the town is in a parking crunch, even considering decreasing the size of the town green to add parking. Daren Jorgenson countered it is common in villages to rely on public parking, and this promotes people walking. Tucker Holland stated each business needs to show they have adequate parking. Daren Jorgenson said his experience has been commercial lot size is typically 15,000 s.f. rather than 20,000 s.f. There was continued discussion of use of public parking or requiring a business to create more parking area. Dean Pierce pointed out there is a number of commercial properties in the village on lots smaller than 20,000 s.f. Approximately six lots could become commercial with the lot area change to 15,000 s.f. Under the Village Core Overlay a business is allowed in the primary structure. Lot frontage is another consideration. Sally Riley explained the garage expansion will allow work space and a show room for Matt Taylor’s business and expansion of the existing antique shop. Dick Elkins pointed out the discussion is about changing the use of the village so people who own property in the village need to be involved. There was concurrence the Planning Commission needs to consider requests and impacts on the larger area, not just one lot. Daren Jorgenson suggested carving out the issue of lot size at 15,000 s.f. with 75’ of frontage so the matter can be dealt with more expediently. Properties impacted if the square footage requirement and frontage are changed should be reviewed to determine the impact on the village. Public parking is a consideration, but the business owner will still need to show some parking for their business. Staff could draft the zoning ordinance change and a public hearing could be held, urged Mr. Jorgenson. Dean Pierce reviewed the chart showing square footage totals in the Village Center District and frontages. There are four lots affected if the lot area is changed to 15,000 s.f. with 100’ of frontage and the Taylor lot is one of the four. Tucker Holland suggested a mailing be sent to the property owners that are impacted. Dick Elkins urged covering the entire village community and asking the Design Review Committee to provide an opinion on the change. Sam Chauncey asked if there are any historic preservation issues with the change in lot size. Dean Pierce stated the more valuable property is made in the village the more pressure there is to change historic buildings or even demolish them. Dick Elkins expressed reservation in pressing forward with the square footage change in isolation. Daren Jorgenson stressed the purpose of the village is to promote economic growth. The village is supposed to be a commercial center. Promoting a livelier Shelburne town is good and the quicker what makes a livelier village can be identified the quicker it will be realized. Sam Chauncey agreed he would like to know what contributes to a more vibrant community, but he would like to see the whole picture. There was continued discussion of how to handle the request. Brian Precourt suggested addressing limitations to the zoning regulations as they arise. Dick Elkins again stressed involving the community and Design Review Committee. Options include changing the Village Center District for lot size, frontage, and setback, changing the Village Core Overlay District to include use of the secondary (accessory) structure, and changing the nonconformity uses section. Daren Jorgenson observed it seems easier to change the lot size, frontage and setback. Dean Pierce will invite property owners in the Village Center District and Commerce & Industry to discuss changes to the zones on April 8, 2010. 5. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES Information from surrounding towns and VTrans on undergrounding utilities was provided to the Planning Commission. Dick Elkins suggested the Selectboard be informed that the Planning Commission is interested in the issue. Dean Pierce will draft a letter for Planning Commission review and attach a sample regulation from an area town (Williston). 6. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY The Planning Commission reviewed questions in the 2003 survey. Some of the questions are still usable, but some are no longer relevant. Sam Chauncey suggested work on the Town Plan should focus on specific areas where changes are wanted. The work list is too long and should be narrowed to a specified number of items. Survey questions should target the areas of concern that overlap between the Town Plan and the work list. Daren Jorgenson agreed the 2003 survey is too generic. The new survey needs to pinpoint the issues. Mr. Jorgenson suggested hiring someone who designs questionnaires to produce a shorter survey. Brian Precourt stated questions should address design control, lighting levels, quality of life issues (vacant buildings, maintenance items), and performance standards. Dick Elkins added there should be a question on ‘in-fill’ development. Daren Jorgenson suggested a question on solar panels. The Planning Commission will forward suggested survey questions to staff. Dean Pierce noted grants are available to develop the survey, but there may not be funding. A cost quote was requested from the Center for Rural Studies on doing a survey. Daren Jorgenson suggested an environmental planning professor be asked to do the survey as a class project. 7. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE, PROCESS, AND AGENDAS Sam Chauncey reviewed his suggestions on how to approach the update of the Town Plan and completing tasks on the Planning Commission work plan (essentially narrow the focus to complete the work within the timeframe). Agenda Items
Next meeting(s):
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 25, 2010 MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Sam Chauncey, to approve the minutes of 2/25/10 as written. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Phase 2B Zoning Changes Dean Pierce noted there were changes proposed to the demolition of structures section of the zoning regulations. Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee preferred not to make the change or say “…shall not have adverse impact….including qualities…”. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. RScty: MERiordan
*********************************
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING March 25, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Kate Lalley, Daren Jorgensen. (Tucker Holland, Ronald Bouchard, and Sam Chauncey were absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Pat and Justin Lee, Frank and Judy Cole, Christine Armstrong, Ted Winfield, Jeremy Matosky, Stanley Polchlopek. AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 3. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Shelburne Airport Mike Burke, representing Ray and Barbara MaGee who own the Shelburne Airport, requested the airport be designated a separate zoning district, much like Shelburne Farms and Museum. The MaGees operate the airport presently, but want to retire. They have a residence on the property. To subdivide the residence from the airport and comply with the zoning requirement of five acres creates a very odd shaped lot and interferes with the taxiway/runway of the airport. The McGees would like the airport to remain in operation as has been the case since 1960. The airport is a neighborhood use with most of the residences having private planes and hangers. The grass surface airport also offers a scenic viewscape. The airport is a nonconforming use in the zone which makes it difficult to make changes. Dean Pierce suggested an airport PUD to provide additional flexibility with the lots. Zoning is needed to address the airport use. The Planning Commission will take the request under consideration when doing the update of the Town Plan. 4. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ‘NET METERED’ FACILITY APPLICATIONS Hollenbeck Solar Panels Jeremy Matosky, neighbor to the Hollenbecks, said a letter was written to the Hollenbecks expressing concerns about the solar panels and requesting a site plan showing the location in relation to the building envelope and tree line. A visual assessment to see what the panels will look like in place should also be done as well as a narrative of impact on the Shelburne Town Plan Significant Views Map and views from neighboring houses on Summerfield Road. There is rumor of a possible boundary line adjustment with the Morse property and the conservation land to create a larger lot. If the boundary line is adjusted then other locations for the solar panels could be considered. The Public Service Board will issue a permit within 30 days of the date of the application unless input is provided, said Mr. Matosky, adding they are so concerned they have filed their own petition, but would like a collaborative effort with the town. Daren Jorgensen asked about the setback requirement for solar installations. Dean Pierce stated net metered facilities are not subject to local zoning regulations. Mr. Pierce noted regarding the photo visualization, the consultant working with the resident (Hollenbeck) said company policy is to do these only if mandated by the Public Service Board. Jeremy Matosky offered to do the demonstration through his engineering firm at no cost. Pat and Justin Lee, 145 Summerfield Road, spoke in support of alternate energy, but expressed concern about the size and scope of the panels on the Hollenbeck lot as well as glare and impact on scenic views. The panels are directly centered in the pastoral view, said Mr. Lee, and the house is higher than the panels so there is concern about looking at 90’ of glass. Daren Jorgensen pointed out the current location and alternate location 25’ to the north still puts the panels in the viewshed according to the Significant Views Map. There is another location closer to the Hollenbeck house that is outside the viewshed of the neighbors and the property owner as well. Brian Precourt recalled even with the threat of letters to the Public Service Board the property owner at the recent site visit indicated the application will not change. An offer was made after the fact to move the panels slightly if necessary, but no promises were made. Jeremy Matosky interjected compliance with the Town Plan is needed. The plan has provisions balancing aesthetics with renewable energy applications. The Hollenbeck panels will have an impact on views noted in the Significant Views Map. The VELCO power line application was modified, recalled Mr. Matosky. Kate Lalley spoke in support of providing input to the Public Service Board because the town can expect more alternate energy applications, and in the Hollenbeck situation, there are alternative sites, though less palatable to the property owner, to grant relief to the neighbors with regard to impact on views. Brian Precourt noted Act 248 trumps local restrictions so trees could be cut behind the house for the panels. Daren Jorgensen stated the town needs to protect the significant viewshed from encroachment. The benefit is going to the property owner so they should make the sacrifice. The property owner is not suffering any externalities of installation of the solar panels, only the neighbors are which is not the message the town wants to send. Jeremy Matosky referenced the charge in the Town Plan to ‘protect the viewscape’, stressing it is good for the town to send the message that alternative energy options can be sought, but the viewshed must be protected. The panels on the Roland property were sited perfectly on a 10 acre parcel without impact on the neighbors on Pond Road, noted Mr. Matosky. MOTION by Kate Lalley, SECOND by Daren Jorgensen, to direct staff to prepare a letter to the Public Service Board (modeled after letters pertaining to net metered power systems included in the meeting packet) regarding the Hollenbeck photovoltaic application, and to identify a location outside the viewshed. DISCUSSION: The neighbors indicated they will also submit letters to the Public Service Board. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. Shelburne Farms Solar Panels Alec Webb mentioned the interest by Shelburne Farms in promoting renewable energy on the farm. A solar voltaic application is being done on the south roof of the farm barn and on an area on the farm where a “solar orchard” will be located. A decision has not yet been made on whether the panels will be 9’ high fixed or 15’ high trackers. Green Mountain Power is looking for a site for the installation. Both GMP and Shelburne Farms will invest in the grid interconnection. GMP wants to get the Certificate of Public Good process moving forward. The ‘orchard’ will be shielded from view and in a field that is not in active agricultural use (just mowed each year). If there are no objections from the town, Shelburne Farms will enter into an agreement with GMP to seek a Certificate of Public Good for the installation. Brian Precourt asked if any conservation easements preclude installation. Mr. Webb said the installation is outside the main block of conservation land, and is not within the mapped view areas. Shelburne Farms is working with a landscape architect specializing in historic properties. Dean Pierce asked about the life expectancy of the panels. Mr. Webb estimated 25 years. The roof panels clip on and do not interfere with the roof. The Planning Commission did not have any concerns about the solar panel application by Shelburne Farms. Cole Wind Turbine Ted Winfield, neighbor to the Cole property, said through the application process for the wind turbine it was assumed the assembly would have a low noise impact, but this has not been the case. The turbine is 300’ from the house and very noisy. The Coles have been contacted. Frank Cole is working with the company to try to resolve the matter. A letter has been sent to the Public Service Board as well, said Mr. Winfield, but a response has not been received. The noise is a whine or a thumping like helicopter blades. There is also vibration. The noise and the vibration are felt inside the house. Daren Jorgensen asked about the maximum ambient streetside noise for an industrial source. Dean Pierce stated the performance standard in the regulations is 70 decibels (sustained). Frank Cole stated a different turbine has been installed due to the noise from the previous two turbines. The new turbine does not seem to emit the whine. The generator also should be quieter. The “fwop, fwop” noise has been addressed, and now the turbine only makes a ‘whishing’ sound. Judy Cole noted their wind turbine is a prototype and still being tested on-site to work out problems. Daren Jorgensen suggested staff research whether the Public Service Board has a noise standard for installations in residential and agricultural zones, and if there is a difference with granting a permit for a prototype versus a production installation. Mr. Jorgensen also questioned the enforcement mechanism if the installation is not in compliance. Christine Armstrong, 75 Wind Ridge, acknowledged the cooperation by the Coles. Ms. Armstrong testified noise from the wind turbine can bee heard from quite a distance away. A framework is needed to protect neighbors living near turbines. Dick Elkins asked about the energy generated by the turbine. Ms. Cole stated the solar panels that were installed generated 1069 kw over three months and the turbine generated 133 kw over one month. The Planning Commission will consider a standard for viewsheds and a standard for noise relative to alternate energy installations when updating the Town Plan. Brian Precourt suggested net metered facility applications be published in the local newspaper so neighbors are alerted. 5. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY The Planning Commission discussed topics to be addressed with the survey, including the following: Ø Questions pertaining to underground utilities. Presently utilities must be buried with new development, but the threshold to mandate that utilities be buried has not been defined for renovation work or for an addition to a building. Ø Questions pertaining to connectivity of neighborhoods and incorporation of multi-use paths. Connectivity helps to prevent funneling all traffic to one main road. Services are cheaper to provide with through roads. Regarding paths, if tax money is used to purchase development rights the public should have some sort of access and a say in how the property is maintained. Ø Questions on density and affordable housing being “inclusionary” in certain sized developments (i.e. in a development of 300 units is having 50 affordable units too few or too many; is the town willing to trade greater density for more affordable housing). Ø Questions on offering street trees as an option and allowing narrower roads with street trees or a permeable path rather than a wide sidewalk. Ø Questions on parking in the village. On-street parking was eliminated on Falls Road due to a pedestrian accident. The area has changed from mostly residential to business so parking is needed. Other areas where parking can be located need to be identified or the idea of a commercial parking garage explored (density may not be high enough in the village at this point to justify building a parking garage which is very expensive). Ø Questions on (re)development in the Route 7 corridor (Shelburne Road from South Burlington to Charlotte). A bonus could be offered as an incentive to redevelop derelict or vacant properties or a design bonus could be given for a well designed building. Ø Questions on partial review of applications and the procedure that lays out the steps for partial review. Other towns identify items that may be problematic and communicate this to the applicant at the beginning of the process. 6. TOWN PLAN UPDATE Continued to the next meeting. 7. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE, PROCESS, AND AGENDAS Agenda Items
Next meeting(s):
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 11, 2010 MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Daren Jorgensen, to approve the minutes of 3/11/10 as written. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE None. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Daren Jorgensen, SECOND by Brian Precourt, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. RScty: MERiordan
January 2010Planning Commission Minutes February 2010 Planning Commission Minutes March 2010 Planning Commission Minutes April 2010 Planning Commission Minutes May 2010 Planning Commission Minutes June 2010 Planning Commission Minutes July 2010 Planning Commission Minutes August 2010 Planning Commission Minutes September 2010 Planning Commission Minutes October 2010 Planning Commission Minutes November 2010 Planning Commission Minutes December 2010 Planning Commission Minutes |
|
|
| Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes |
