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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ted Winfield, Nancy Herman, Gail Albert, Steven Antinozzi, Don Rendall, Sean McFadden, Christine Armstrong, Margo Callaghan (Shelburne News).

In the absence of Chairman Dick Elkins, Brian Precourt called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

Dean Pierce reported Fred Schmidt is unable to attend the meeting to discuss the survey. Comments from the Selectboard on the opinion survey are advisory in nature to help clarify and strengthen the questions. It was observed the Planning Commission’s focus is on quality of life issues and a vision for what Shelburne will look like in the future while the Selectboard’s focus is cost. A sample questionnaire crafted by Windward Consulting using Survey Monkey was reviewed. There was discussion of questions being biased and presenting a particular point of view. There was also discussion of controlling for multiple responses from an individual and allowing responses from each resident in a household. Further work will be done on the survey prior to the next meeting.

 

Gail Albert and other members of the Shelburne Natural Resources and Conservation Committee explained the reasoning for the suggested amendments to the town plan by SNRCC. Brian Precourt clarified the Planning Commission determines updates to town maps while SNRCC submits recommendations on the updates. Tucker Holland suggested the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendments, rather than wordsmith the text. Daren Jorgensen stressed the language in the bylaws and town plan must be consistent.

 

There was lengthy discussion of management plans for town owned open space or conserved land and third party oversight, such as through The Nature Conservancy. Kate Lalley requested updated information on the status of existing management plans and various third party interests. Brian Precourt disagreed with having a goal of ceding control to a third party to take over town owned property, opining that if the town owns the land then the property should be town controlled. Ms. Lalley agreed if public money is used to buy and conserve land there must be a good reason why there is not going to be public access. Sean McFadden, SNRCC, assured there is a good relationship and good collaboration with organizations that conserve property in the town. Many conservation arrangements are complex, but always above board and collegial.

 

There was mention of removing goals in the plan that have already been achieved. Daren Jorgensen suggested keeping the goals as a watchdog function.

 

Mr. Jorgensen stated language is needed to control installation of billboard sized solar panels and other net metered installations in viewsheds and significant view areas. There was agreement an updated viewshed analysis is needed.  Also, viewshed maps need to be revised as development occurs. There was mention of changing the zoning to include a wildlife habitat overlay and map. Sean McFadden noted other towns have wildlife habitat overlays and use them as a planning tool, not to designate a ‘no development’ zone. The overlay better delineates areas of concern by the town. Daren Jorgensen agreed a map as a tool is a good concept, but there is concern about no build buffers around sensitive features. Having a map that shows where to best locate solar panels is a good idea, for example. Sean McFadden pointed out protecting wildlife habitat is part of the town plan. The zoning regulations should support the town plan and if not, then the matter should be revisited. Kate Lalley agreed a wildlife habitat map would be very helpful.

 

Ted Winfield reported changes to the Cole windmill by his house have nearly eliminated the whine from the turbine. Christine Armstrong, another resident living by the wind turbine, agreed that the whine is gone. Occasionally there is a flapping noise from the turbine. There was discussion of appropriate noise levels. Daren Jorgensen suggested a maximum 50-55 dBA level is desirable with 55 dBA in the Mixed Use zone and 50 dBA in the Residential and Agricultural zones (agricultural tractors exempted). An industrial facility must demonstrate an ambient noise component. The noise levels should be included in the town plan, bylaws, and as an ordinance. Mr. Jorgensen will circulate a draft noise ordinance for consideration. Dean Pierce will investigate appropriate locations in the zoning regulations for the noise regulations. Input from the Selectboard is needed on the proposed ordinance. The Selectboard decides whether an ordinance is adopted or not.

 

A response has not been received from the Public Service Board on the Niklas-Dummit application.

 

The Planning Commission did not receive a copy of the Sweeney application. Comments can still be submitted (within the 30-day timeframe). Planning Commissioners will do their own visit to the Sweeney site and if there is an issue a letter will be sent to the PSB noting a copy of the application was not received by the town and suggesting in the future the PSB should consider an application incomplete if the town is not notified because the town is very concerned about the location of installations.

 

Dean Pierce will communicate the Planning Commission’s vision for Route 7 to Matt Lutz and the Norwich University students doing a Shelburne Road design evaluation.

 

Dean Pierce said he is not optimistic the town will receive a Tiger II planning grant for a design charrette on the Shelburne Road corridor.

 

The Planning Commission will discuss requests for zoning changes on Shelburne Road relative to the Ondovchik, Handy, and Naud properties at the September 9^th meeting.

 

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dorothea Penar, Ann Milovsoroff, Becky Jewett, Charles Baker, Danielle Frawley (Shelburne News).

 [NOTE: The minutes reflect the order of the published agenda though agenda items were covered in different order at the meeting.]

 

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

 

The discussion of the noise ordinance was deferred to the next meeting.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

Charlie Baker, Regional Planning Director, provided a copy of the currently adopted map showing planning areas and a map of the proposed planning areas. The plan is a picture of land development policy in Chittenden County and tries to identify features and characteristics in the individual town plans, said Mr. Baker. Act 250 (criterion #10) requires development/projects to conform to the regional plan. The currently adopted planning areas include Metro (urban type development), Transition (suburban), Enterprise (business parks, industrial areas), Village, and Rural. The revised plan identifies the planning zones as follows: Center (city/downtown areas), Enterprise, Metro, Rural, Suburban, and Village. The goal is to try to get local zoning maps and the regional zoning map in sync. The Center planning area has a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Village planning area has a density of less than four dwelling units per acre. Centers include Burlington downtown, Winooski, city center in South Burlington. The next level of Centers (medium density) includes Severance Corners in Colchester, Milton village, Tafts Corners in Williston, and Essex Junction. Dean Pierce noted in Shelburne the sewer service area is identified as the primary growth area and within that zone is the village. Sam Chauncey asked if there is any impact as a result of a designation. Charlie Baker said only if the regional plan is more specific than the local plan which is not likely. Brian Precourt asked if an Enterprise planning zone located in a suburban district is considered nonconforming to the regional plan. Charlie Baker explained the position is that suburban is predominantly residential with some employment. Kate Lalley asked if any consideration was given to Shelburne’s Enterprise planning zone being different from Milton’s Enterprise planning zone. Charlie Baker said there can be some flexibility provided the definition does not become meaningless.

 

Dean Pierce will work with Charlie Baker on amending the map to include Shelburne’s Commerce & Industry and Commerce & Industry South zones as well as Pizzagalli Park in the Enterprise planning area in the regional plan. The Planning Commission agreed it would be beneficial to include designation of the Enterprise planning area on the map of Shelburne along Shelburne Road. The draft regional plan will be distributed in spring, 2011 for comment. There will be an initial draft, an intermediate draft, and the final plan (for adoption). The regional plan will be used in conjunction with municipal plans to view the region for growth capacity, sewer capacity, and such.

 

Becky Jewett, Windward Group, reviewed the survey questions. The survey will be on-line as well as in print (insert in the local newspaper at a cost of $300 for a single insert and $100 for a banner ad for a month). There will be a link in the library to the survey. The survey will be emailed to the email addresses of town residents that are on file. Return boxes will be set up at various locations in town for paper copies of the completed survey. The town is not paying for postage to mail the completed survey. UVM students will be doing data entry from the paper surveys and a statistical analysis of the results. It is possible to monitor the results to determine multiple responses by one participant. There was discussion of the questions on the survey and suggested clarifications to eliminate ambiguity in what is being asked and the available responses. For example, the list of important items from which the respondent must choose may be meaningless because all the choices are important. Ms. Jewett pointed out the questions are directional and indicate whether the respondent is happy with how things are or if a change in direction is needed. The survey questions and responses can be cross-tabbed. Daren Jorgensen suggested there be a question pertaining to issues currently under discussion by the Planning Commission, such as developing the village through zoning changes or re-development along Shelburne Road. Ms. Jewett suggested a list of items be added such as developing the village and preserving the character of the village to be rated on a scale from 1 to 10.  There was further discussion of adding questions that address issues being discussed by the Planning Commission relative to the town plan update (e.g. Route 7 corridor, economic development, bike/ped paths, streetscapes, service stations, affordable housing). A revised draft survey will be emailed to the Planning Commission for review.

 

Dorothea Penar and Ann Milovsoroff with the Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee reviewed draft historic and cultural resources policies with the Planning Commission, stressing more education is needed about what historic preservation can do for a community. Historic preservation is an economic benefit as opposed to a stumbling block. Historic preservation is a tool to ensure the community does not look like every other community. Towns that have preserved and promoted their heritage have survived urban renewals, said Ms. Penar. SHPDRC wants to see development in character with the town, maintaining the authentic look of Shelburne village.  Format-wise it is suggested goals be stated at the start of the section on historic preservation followed by background information and the objectives and tools to accomplish the goals. There was discussion of scenic views and views relative to national registry sites. There are entrance views coming into the village (church spires and such) and a view of the Shelburne Museum looking west.  It was noted the inventory of historic and important heritage sites needs to be updated on an on-going basis. Language is needed relative to defining and protecting the scenic gateways. There was mention of the Significant Views Map in the town plan. Scenic views associated with cultural or historic resources do not appear on the Significant Views Map. There was discussion of creating a separate map for historic resources to tie into the town plan. SHPDRC will work on the map. The Planning Commission will forward comments on the draft historic and culture resources policies to Dean Pierce by 9/1/10 for further discussion at the next meeting.

 

 

Deferred to the next meeting.

 

Dean Pierce reported a response from the Public Service Board still has not been received on the Niklas-Dummit application.

 

A letter was sent to the PSB regarding the Sweeney application. Planning Commissioners did personal site visits and no comments were forwarded to staff.

 

Brian Precourt said he received a call from a member of the Waitsfield Planning Commission saying they share the feeling of being left out of PSB proceedings for photovoltaic applications and have discussed identifying an area in their town for these applications, much like what is being done at Shelburne Farms. Green Mountain Power has indicated the same benefits come from a ‘farm’ as an individual installation. Dean Pierce said he also was contacted about the photovoltaic issue (Moretown and Warren). There is interest in discussing a change in legislation. There was brief further discussion of the solar farm option and individuals getting the benefit of the energy generated. There was mention of the issue of personal control on the solar panel by locating the device on private property.

 

Natural and Scenic Resources and Land Conservation

Historic and Cultural Resources

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.