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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Brianne and Matthew Taylor.

Chairman Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM.

 

 

Deferred:

Ø      Item #6 – Noise Regulations

Ø      Item #8 – Partial Review of Development Applications

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:10 PM. Brian Precourt recused himself from deliberation/decision on the zoning changes pertaining to the Village Center (Article VIII). Dean Pierce reviewed the changes to include reduction of lot area to 15,000 s.f. (was 20,000 s.f.) and frontage for a single family house from 75’ to 60’ and from 100’ to 75’ for a two family house. The frontage for other uses was reduced from 150’ to 100’. There are five properties in the district that are impacted by the changes. With the changes these properties will have new opportunity for some commercial development. Some of the five properties are already in commercial use. There were no comments from the public.

 

 

Brian Precourt returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Deferred to a future meeting when Daren Jorgensen is present.

 

Dean Pierce reported the planning grant application has been submitted. A response is expected by the end of June. The state legislature did not change the update cycle for town plans. The update cycle for regional plans was changed from every five years to every eight years. Also, update of regulations pertaining to fees was changed from every five years to every eight years. If Shelburne does not receive the planning grant then the original update cycle for the town plan (five years) will be followed. January, 2012 is when the update needs to be complete.  Kate Lalley suggested contacting the Community Planning Center at UVM for assistance. Dean Pierce agreed this option can be pursued if the grant is not received.

 

Deferred to a future meeting when Daren Jorgensen is present.

 

There was discussion of looking at the entire Mixed Use District rather than piecemeal and spot changes. It was noted Mark Naud was not able to supply information that was previously promised pertaining to his property in the Commerce & Industry District. Dick Elkins suggested including fast food establishments and gas stations on Shelburne Road as a question on the survey for public opinion. There was further discussion of options to deal with properties in the Mixed Use District, such as having different requirements for vacant parcels versus an already developed parcel or allowing adaptive reuse of a property. It was suggested another question on the survey could ask about potential uses to get public opinion. Kate Lalley observed the regulations as written now may be too narrow. Adaptive reuse needs to be allowed so the town is not stuck with large abandoned box stores. Setbacks, scale issues, landscaping, and configuration of the site can be reviewed. Tucker Holland suggested inviting the Development Review Board to a joint meeting to discuss confusing or grey areas in the regulations. Mr. Holland recalled past discussions of having a visual difference when leaving South Burlington and entering Shelburne. Architectural review of the buildings along the road may be as effective as a setback. Brian Precourt agreed with having an emphasis on building design, but not a set feature such as a determined number of peaks on the roof. Tucker Holland suggested the HP&DRC or an ad hoc committee review projects, keeping in mind these are mainly commercial uses, not historic residences. Kate Lalley suggested the HP&DRC deal with development along Route 7 much the same as it deals with development in the historic village. Dean Pierce advised that if a board in that role is used then a design study of the corridor must first be done. Brian Precourt suggested simply getting an informal opinion from a panel of individuals in town who have architectural expertise. Tucker Holland observed the market and economy drives the businesses that decide Shelburne is where they want to located. The town boards need to maintain the aesthetics and character of Shelburne over time. Sam Chauncey suggested a joint meeting be held with the Planning Commission, DRB, and HP&DRC to discuss how Route 7 can enhance economic development (i.e. discuss the Mixed Use District). The DRB is making design decisions now. Kate Lalley stated a broadening of the current understanding of the ordinances is needed. The DRB needs a broader set of tools. Brian Precourt mentioned the “Cars to People” committee in South Burlington and will forward information to Dean Pierce. There was continued discussion of holding a joint meeting with the DRB and other groups. Tucker Holland said the DRB needs to inform the Planning Commission where the bylaws are not working. The Selectboard should also be invited to a joint meeting to discuss areas of concern. Dean Pierce will find out the interest in a joint meeting with the DRB, Selectboard, and other committees, and determine if June 10^th is an available date. It was noted the Planning Commission and DRB will be attending the upcoming Selectboard retreat.

 

There was discussion of the site visit with the Public Service Board on May 17, 2010 for the Cole and Hollenbeck installations, and the pre-hearing conference for Hollenbeck. Dean Pierce advised the town must be prepared to state what is wrong and why (and call witnesses if necessary). In the Section 248 process if the town enters the hearing the town attorney will be present. Tucker Holland pointed out the Significant Views Map is the town’s focus. Mr. Pierce explained the PSB would have to find that there is an undue adverse impact on aesthetics. The town’s expert may counter by saying the installation violates a clearly written community standard and there is a map as well. There was mention of identifying alternate locations that do not violate the regulations. Sam Chauncey noted NRG in Hinesburg leases panels in their solar field.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Christine Armstrong, Jeremy Matosky, Kurt Gruendling, Barb McGee, Ray McGee, Mike Burke.

John Adams opened the meeting at 7 PM.

 

MOTION by Sam Chauncey, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to nominate Dick Elkins as Chairman of the Shelburne Planning Commission. There were no other nominations. VOTING: 5 ayes, 1 abstention (Elkins)[Kate Lalley not present for vote]; motion carried.

 

Dick Elkins assumed the duties of Chairman.

 

MOTION by Ron Bouchard, SECOND by Sam Chauncey, to nominate Brian Precourt as Vice Chairman of the Shelburne Planning Commission. There were no other nominations. VOTING: 5 ayes, 1 abstention (Precourt)[Kate Lalley not present for vote]; motion carried.

 

Brian Precourt assumed the duties of Vice Chairman.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

Mike Burke with Krebs and Lansing Engineering explained the request by Barb and Ray McGee to change current zoning to allow creation of a smaller lot around their existing house from the airport parcel of 23 acres. Current zoning requires five acre lots, but creating a five acre lot from the airport parcel would adversely impact operation of the public access privately owned airport which has been in operation since the 1950s and operated by the McGee family since 1977. The McGees want to relinquish operation of the airport which has grown to include many flights, repairs, and a flight school, but want to continue to reside on the site. The McGees would like to create a situation where the activities are sanctioned by changing the zoning to allow an Airport PUD configuration so the McGee house lot can be subdivided and the airport can continue to function. Besides pilots, many people use the airport space to walk their dog or hit golf balls. The airport is an asset to the town.

 

Dick Elkins mentioned creating a lot of two acres around the house and leasing at will three acres back to the airport for as long as the airport functions as an airport otherwise the acreage recombines with the two acres for a total lot size of five acres. In the mean time if the zoning is changed the McGees can decide an appropriate plan of action.  There is a similar situation in town with a five acre long term lease for commercial property so the owner can have the use on the property. Brian Precourt recalled the sketch plan to subdivide the property created an odd shaped five acre lot and neighbors were not happy (concerned about access to the airport because a ‘finger’ of land as part of the five acres was between their property and the airport).

 

Kurt Gruendling, Ginger Lane (northeast corner of the airport) spoke in support of the plan presented by the McGees. Mr. Gruendling said it is in the town’s best interest to allow the airport to remain in perpetuity and to preserve the asset. The airport is the only other public use airstrip in Chittenden County besides Burlington International Airport. The zoning was only recently changed from a three acre minimum to five acres which would not have created the present situation for the McGees.

 

The Planning Commission agreed airport operations need to be included in the zoning. The airport is identified in the town plan. The proposed zoning amendment drafted by Mike Burke was reviewed. There was discussion of the language relating to maximum building coverage (25%) and frontage requirements. Tucker Holland mentioned the next owner of the airport may want to live on the site as well. John Adams suggested rather than stating a maximum or minimum coverage, the density should meet the requirements of the underlying district and lots can be created as the owner determines. This would allow a five acre density with a two acre lot. It was noted the language as drafted by Mr. Burke would allow a PUD where a two acre lot is created, but there is no provision for an airport use. Mike Burke clarified the suggested language for an airport PUD is to allow a residential lot to co-exist with the airport in the PUD. Brian Precourt commented that creating a separate district and allowing existing houses on a maximum lot size of two acres will allow the airport parcel to be 20 acres and no additional smaller lots can be created. John Adams said two public hearings would be required if a separate zoning district is created, and because only one property is impacted this would be considered ‘spot zoning’. The zoning amendment is not spot zoning and only requires one public hearing. There was further discussion of the proposed language. John Adams stated within the PUD there can be an identified building area for structures only with the scope defined so any future development in the area is compatible with the residential homes.

 

Staff will review the proposed PUD language and make necessary revisions. Language will also be drafted for a separate district and a legal opinion will be sought on the spot zoning issue if a new district is created. A public hearing on the language will be warned on June 24, 2010 (the Planning Commission is hosting a joint work session with the Selectboard and DRB at the June 10^th meeting).

 

Jeremy Matosky stated the owner of the Red Apple Motel property (Handy) wants to redevelop the property, but the current zoning is limiting options. Mr. Handy would like to build a Simon’s convenience store of approximately 4,000 s.f. including the sale of gas, but Shelburne’s zoning will not allow gas stations. The communities north and south of Shelburne allow gas stations, and there are other Simon stores in these locations. Mr. Handy is willing to purchase the nearby parcel owned by Jolley and locate the gas station there. The structure will be attractive as are the other Simon’s stores and will provide the service that people want.

 

There was discussion of Shelburne’s decision not to allow any more gas stations in town (the town wanted to distinguish itself from the development along Shelburne Road in South Burlington). Dick Elkins felt allowing gas stations in town should be a question on the public opinion survey. Daren Jorgensen suggested changing the bylaws to allow gas stations as a conditional use and giving the DRB design criteria to create a viable use. A public hearing can be held to hear opinions on the matter. Dick Elkins pointed out major changes have been made in the zoning (increased lot coverage, decreased parking requirements, decreased setbacks), but very little development has occurred, possibly due to the current state of the economy. Brian Precourt stated the town cannot dictate how a business will look because most businesses follow their own model. Daren Jorgensen stressed the town needs to provide businesses with options on property zoned for commercial use and ban businesses that are not compatible to the area or the zone. There is much opportunity for public comment through the process of a zoning change, but clear criteria for the conditional use are needed so there is a cogent proposal and people know what will be on the site. Ron Bouchard questioned if the Mixed Use District is the proper place for a convenience store with a gas station. Jeremy Matosky stated a gas station does not generate much traffic, but does generate turning movements. Also, Route 7 is a major corridor; a gas station is not incongruent with a major traffic corridor. Brian Precourt interjected no one wants to live on Route 7 though there are sections where a mix of commercial and residential might work better than the Handy lot. Tucker Holland said he can envision an attractive gas station versus a residential option, but with a gas station there would need to be stringent design review control. Kate Lalley stated the lot is valued as a buffer from Route 7 for the neighborhood behind. The existing use is incompatible for families. The development on the lot will still provide a buffer from Route 7 and then there can be an interesting residential mix behind much like the situation with Juniper Ridge. Kate Lalley spoke in support of making the use a conditional use with as many conditions as needed so the DRB has the ability to allow what the town would want and enjoy. Convenience stores/gas stations in other places in the country are very attractive and offer a variety of services, such as food sales, coffee bars, restaurants, becoming destination sites. The footprint is not huge either.  Jeremy Matosky spoke in support of “re-visioning” the perception of gas stations. Brian Precourt cautioned that allowing gas stations may also allow a fleet fueling operation.

 

Regarding a residential use on the lot, Jeremy Matosky stated affordable housing on the Handy lot is the only density that would work. An apartment building with ten units will not work. A two or three story extended stay hotel with 33 units is envisioned. Any retail use would be limited by the lack of access from Shelburne Road according to Section 1930.7(b)(2) of the regulations. Dick Elkins said the existing curb cuts on Route 7 for the property can be used. Mr. Matosky observed the regulations were likely intended to limit larger fast food restaurants, but have also eliminated smaller shops which could be located on the first floor of a mixed use building. Daren Jorgensen pointed out an accessory use to a conditional use for a restaurant could be allowed.

 

John Adams suggested what the Mixed Use District is perhaps should be revisited since the existing uses do not match the zoning. There was mention of having a town wide design charrette to design what is suitable for the area (long term vision for the area north of the village). A set of design criteria and zoning restrictions can be drafted to address aesthetics and zoning requirements. The design review committee (HPDRC) could be involved. The design charrette could be part of the design study.

 

Postponed.

 

Daren Jorgensen stated the town has viewshed standards for solar panels, but does not have any standard to control wind turbines. There should be a simple decibel standard for day and night operation in residential, rural, and industrial locations. An ordinance is needed (Selectboard establishes ordinances, Planning Commission purview is the zoning bylaws) so the town has a standing in Act 250 and Act 248 hearings and can act on behalf of the people in the community. It was noted the Public Service Board is not bound by town ordinances. John Adams stated noise regulations as part of the performance standards is unenforceable because typically notices of violation end up being issued well after the incidence of noise (the noise and complaint typically occurs at night or on weekends when the town offices are closed) and the violator has seven days to stop the noise. Daren Jorgensen will draft a zoning bylaw for noise for review by staff and the commissioners.

 

Christine Armstrong, Shelburne resident, testified the Cole wind turbine is very noisy (squeals, whirring) and disturbing, impacting on quality of life.

 

Postponed.

 

John Adams reported the request on behalf of the Planning Commission has been sent to the Public Service Board regarding the Cole and Hollenbeck applications, but a response has not yet been received.

 

 

 

The Selectboard retreat is June 28, 2010.

 

Shelburne did not receive the planning grant that was to be used for the opinion survey. There will be a state grant program in the future for smaller grant amounts.

 

Town plans must be updated every five years.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.