    |
  |
        |
|
|
April 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING April 8, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Kate Lalley, Daren Jorgensen, Tucker Holland, Ronald Bouchard, Sam Chauncey. STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Brianne and Matthew Taylor, Michael Serrano, John Ondovchik, Gwen Webster, Mark Naud, Stuart Bennett, Steve Selin. AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 3. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC There were no comments from the public at this time. 4. VILLAGE CENTER COMMERCIAL ZONING The Planning Commission discussed the proposal to decrease lot size and frontage requirements for a commercial use in the Village Center District to 15,000 s.f. (lot size) and 100’ (frontage). MOTION by Sam Chauncey, SECOND by Daren Jorgensen, to warn a public hearing on May 13, 2010 on the proposal to decease the lot size requirement for a commercial use in the Village Center District to 15,000 s.f. and the frontage requirement to a minimum of 100’. VOTING: unanimous (6-0)[Kate Lalley not present for vote]; motion carried. 5. COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DISTRICT ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed language to add elderly housing to the Commerce and Industry District or change the map to add the Ondovchik parcel to the Mixed Use District. The concern about the size of the setback for residential versus commercial lots was mentioned. Dean Pierce briefly explained the square footage requirement for senior housing. Independent living elderly housing units which are essentially a dwelling unit with an elderly resident require 7,500 s.f. Dwelling units that offer more support services (assisted living units) require 3,500 s.f. for attached (congregate) housing and 2,000 s.f. for elder care units. Ron Bouchard questioned if it will be more difficult for a commercial use to get a permit if a residential use is allowed in the district. Daren Jorgensen confirmed this, pointing out the impacts of noise, lighting, landscape screening, and traffic would be taken into consideration for the commercial use if residential is allowed. Also, elderly care housing will diminish the value of the existing industrial properties. Brian Precourt pointed out the industrial park has not been a success in the current location. Mixed use may be a better approach. Mark Naud, Northern Vermont Financial, recalled there have been requests before the Planning Commission to rezone their 86,000 s.f. lot in the Commerce and Industry District west of the tracks to allow residential since 2001. An industrial developer who is interested in developing the lot has not been found after an exhaustive search. The zoning change is requested to allow expanded uses on the lot, such as workforce housing. Mr. Naud spoke in support of expanded uses in the Commerce and Industry District and allowing the Development Review Board to tailor the type of use to suit the town (e.g. do not limit the housing type to elderly housing). There was continued discussion of past attempts to develop the Naud parcel under the current zoning. Mark Naud said according to developers, density is needed. Workforce housing units could be built within the PUD footprint with open space surrounding the housing units. The conservation land would be protected. The lots have been unused for 20 years in the Commerce & Industry zone, said Mr. Naud. Daren Jorgensen observed all towns should have a commercial/industrial zone and if this is not the area for Shelburne, then the zoning should be reconsidered. The impact of the change in zoning on the buyer of a lot or the current owner/user of the lots needs to be considered though. Perhaps the screening requirement could be ‘softened’, suggested Mr. Jorgensen. Sam Chauncey offered that the buyer interested in residential development should be alerted that industrial uses are allowed in the zone and that screening requirements that apply to residential uses do not apply. Brian Precourt suggested the Ondovchik property, Almartin property, and the other two parcels be included in the Mixed Use District. The lots in the Commerce & Industry zone (Harbour Industries and such) should remain. The Naud parcel on the other side of the railroad tracks should be allowed residential uses in order to be usable. Dean Pierce noted 15,000 s.f. is required for a single family lot and 10,000 s.f. is required for a duplex in the Mixed Use zone. The Residential zone requires 20,000 s.f. for a single family dwelling. Mr. Jorgensen requested that staff render a map showing the properties in the Mixed Use zone so some development scenarios can be drawn to see the impact of the regulations. Mike Serrano suggested the rear lots in the Commerce & Industry District remain as such and the remainder of the lots changed to Mixed Use zoning. Mr. Jorgensen added the change to Mixed Use is following the logical progression of development that is occurring. No one is pursuing industrial development in the area. 6. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY There was discussion of partial review of an application. Brian Precourt suggested a decision be required in the partial review process so the applicant has clear direction from the town. Daren Jorgensen stated the Planning Commission needs to provide clear guidelines for partial review so the process is clear and establishes the requirement by the DRB to make partial findings and vote so the findings are binding. The applicant wants assurance of the process. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission agreed there should not be a question about the partial review process on the opinion survey. There was discussion of the questions on the survey. Tucker Holland suggested having explanatory text of the subject matter and then several different statements for the reader to prioritize as most closely representing their point of view. Sam Chauncey urged identifying the ‘hot issues’ and their ranking (high to low priority) then language can be drafted for review by the public. The Planning Commission needs to know what the residents want the Commission to spend time on. Energy was mentioned as a topic. Daren Jorgensen volunteered to work on questions for the survey. Suggestions should be forwarded to Commissioner Jorgensen. 7. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE, PROCESS, AND AGENDAS Agenda Items
Next meeting(s):
8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 11, 2010 MOTION by Sam Chauncey, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the minutes of 3/11/10 with the global correction of the spelling of “Daren Jorgensen”. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. March 25, 2010 MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Sam Chauncey, to approve the minutes of 3/25/10 with the global correction of the spelling of “Daren Jorgensen”. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Update of Town Plan Staff reported there is state legislation proposed to modify the mandatory update of town plans every five year to allow update every 10 years. Solar Orchard Application by Shelburne Farms Staff confirmed an application by Shelburne Farms for a ‘solar orchard’ on their property has been submitted. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Sam Chauncey, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. RScty: MERiordan
******************************
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING April 22, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Elkins (Chairman); Brian Precourt, Kate Lalley, Tucker Holland, Ronald Bouchard. (Daren Jorgensen and Sam Chauncey were absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Christine Armstrong. AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: 1) Discussion of planning grant under Town Plan Update 2) Public Service Board amendment to Cole application under Other Business 3. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC There were no comments from the public at this time. 4. TOWN PLAN UPDATE Dean Pierce reported there will be grant funding available ($15,000 maximum). The Planning Commission needs to decide whether to submit an application and authorize staff to prepare the application for Selectboard endorsement. The grant could be used to do the public opinion survey. There was discussion of the timeline for the grant and development of the survey, perhaps by the Center for Rural Studies at UVM. There was mention of the possible legislative change relative to the update of town plans being every 10 years rather than every five years. MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Dick Elkins, to direct staff to continue preparing a municipal planning grant for a request not to exceed $15,000 to craft a public opinion survey and to authorize the Chairman to sign the application if required, and further, that staff present the outline of the application to the Selectboard on 4/27/10. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. There was agreement the speed of progress by the Planning Commission on the town plan update hinges on the legislative decision relative to the update timeframe (every five years or 10 years). 5. NOISE REGULATIONS There was discussion of drafting a noise ordinance and setting standards for vibrations and noise sensitive areas. Dean Pierce suggested setting quantitative standards for vibrations to eliminate subjectivity. Equipment to measure vibrations/noise will be needed. Kate Lalley suggested drafting a noise ordinance and focusing first on regulating the noise of wind turbines. Dean Pierce warned of discriminating against one noise source, and suggested focusing on thresholds of noise. Christine Armstrong, Dorset Street, testified the wind turbine on the Cole property is 700’ from her house and very noisy. There are vibrations as well. Ms. Armstrong spoke in support of thresholds where if the noise is inaudible to neighbors then the turbine is fine, but if the noise is audible then the turbine is not acceptable. Also, having the property boundary contain the noise boundary makes sense. In other words a wind turbine on 100 acres is fine, but not on two acres. There was mention of citing language in the zoning regulations and asking the Public Service Board to make a condition of approval relative to wind turbines. Ms. Armstrong said a clear formula and standard will be needed going forward. Dean Pierce noted there are plans to develop the bylaws further. MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Brian Precourt, to direct staff to draft a letter to be signed by the Chairman asking the Public Service Board to consider noise standards in the Town of Shelburne zoning regulations as a clear community standard. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 6. UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE, PROCESS, AND AGENDAS Agenda Items
Next meeting(s):
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 8, 2010 MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Kate Lalley, to approve the minutes of 4/8/10 with the following correction(s)/clarification(s): Page 2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence – insert “Concerning the Commerce & Industry North zone” before “Daren Jorgensen observed all towns should have a commercial/industrial zone….” Page 2, 3rd paragraph, 3rd & 4th sentences – rewrite to read “Sam Chauncey expressed concern that individual users not incur undue burden with potential change in the district. Daren Jorgensen suggested perhaps lessoning the screening requirement obligation from the industrial user to the residential user.” VOTING: 4 ayes, one abstention (Bouchard); motion carried. 8. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Hollenbeck Solar Panels Staff reported a response from the hearing officer has not yet been received relative to the Hollenbeck solar panels. Cole Application Amendment Staff reported the Coles have amended their permit to allow another solar panel. The panels are pre-empted from zoning requirements and setbacks. Ron Bouchard observed the town has no ability to regulate the location of solar panels and the impact on neighbors. Perhaps language should be introduced to the legislature to give towns more authority in the matter. Affordable Housing in Shelburne The amount of affordable housing in Shelburne appears to be on tract with the town plan which lists as goals 10% moderate priced housing and 10% affordable housing. There was discussion of whether elderly housing units are considered affordable housing. Dick Elkins said Shelburne does not have an affordability index for elderly housing. Dean Pierce stated the developer of a multi-unit elderly housing project could be required to have some portion be affordable. Tucker Holland said a more scientific approach is needed to determine if the location for affordable housing is workable for successful habitation. For example, building affordable housing is a rural location far from jobs, services, and public transportation will not work. The Planning Commission agreed there should be a question on the survey about affordable housing. Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments Dean Pierce reviewed the content of the reporting form. MOTION by Ron Bouchard, SECOND by Kate Lalley, to approve the “Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments”, dated 4/27/10, and include the document in the distribution. VOTING: 4 ayes, one abstention (Precourt); motion carried. Steve Waltien Dick Elkins mentioned the recent passing of Steve Waltien who was a long term member of the zoning board. Condolences are sent to the family. Mr. Waltien will be missed. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brian Precourt, SECOND by Ron Bouchard, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 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 |
