Planning Commsission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MARCH 13, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairman; Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Chris Neme, Kay Kraushaar. (Fred Schmidt was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Name Address
Tom Gresham Shelburne News
Bob & Judi Manchester Shelburne
Michael Burke Swenson Land & Cattle
Jeremy Matosky Swenson Land & Cattle
Eril Morril Charlotte
Jed Graef Shelburne
Thea Platt Shelburne
Bill Jokela Shelburne
Robert Platt Shelburne
Tom Bushey Shelburne
Gerry Guillemette Shelburne
Dave Marshall CEA/Zen Center

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2003
2. Sketch Plan Review, Swenson Land & Cattle LLC, 1250 Pond Road (SUB03-04)
3. Site Plan Approval Amendment, Vermont Zen Center, 480 Thomas Road (SP02-01R)
4. Discussion:Possible Zoning and Subdivision Bylaw Changes
5. Other Business and Correspondence
6. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rick Peterson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2003
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to approve the 2/27/03 minutes with the following corrections:
Page 2, Precourt application heading – change “site plan” to “subdivision”;
Page 2, Applicant Comments (Precourt), 4th line – change “were purchased” to “will be purchased”;
Page 2, 6th line from bottom, sentence re: water cutting diagonally across the Mitchell’s backyard – delete remainder of the sentence reading “and keeps water off the Precourt property …”;
Page 4, Precourt Deliberation/Decision – add: “The Planning Commission agreed that language saying “to be approved by the Town Engineer” included the issues raised by Steve Vock in his December 4, 2001 memo;
Page 4, Motion (Precourt), 6th line – change “transfer of” to “transfer to” relative to .69 acres of property from Bays End to Rinald & Beatrice Precourt;
Page 5, Zoning changes, 4th line – change “10,000 s.f.” to “100,000 s.f.” relative to lot size.
VOTING: unanimous (6 -0); motion carried.

2. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, SWENSON LAND & CATTLE LLC, 1250 POND ROAD (SUB03-04)
Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre recused themselves from deliberation/decision on the application. Reg Gignoux assumed the duty of Chairman. Mike Burke, Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mike Burke explained sketch plan approval was previously granted, however, the site plan has been refined. Mr. Burke reviewed the new plan, dated 3/3/03. Lot #1 contains the existing farmstead. Lots #2-#7 are newly created. Lots #2-#6 share a common 20’ drive to a cul-de-sac, and then individual driveways to each house. The cluster of lots will have a common wastewater system with force mains. There will be a replacement system. The homeowners association will own and operate the system in common. There is an easement on Lot #6 where the primary common septic system is located, and an easement between Lot #3 and Lot #4 where the replacement system is located. Lot #7 is separate from the cluster of lots and located to the southwest. There is an existing barn complex. There are two building envelopes on Lot #7, but only one will be used (offering a choice to the owner). Lot #7 will be served by an on-site septic system or a force main to a wastewater disposal system depending on the building envelope chosen. The driveway will be located along the edge of the field. One building envelope on Lot #7 is in the view corridor from Hinesburg Road. The other envelope is outside the corridor and includes the barn complex. The building envelope creates a purpose for the barns, and hopefully will preserve the structures. The westerly boundary line of the property has wetlands and upland areas. It may be possible to have a walking trail with access from Hinesburg Road to Pond road, and possibly to Shelburne Pond. Only a walking path is recommended because the area is sensitive and tree cutting or contour changes should be avoided. Regarding a 20’ easement for a bike path corridor along Hinesburg Road, the barn is close to the road so a 20’ path would be a hindrance (i.e. the path may need to be narrowed in that area). The roadway previously proposed for the development will remain. There is a viewshed to Shelburne Pond. The building envelopes are in the trees. There will be tree cutting restrictions. There is no need to clear cut for a view, and existing trees will shield the houses from view. There are no changes to the existing farmstead. The 166 acres of farmland are to be preserved with the Vermont Land Trust. The land is accessed by a gravel road from Pond Road. There is also a deeded easement from Frogs End Road.

Reg Gignoux asked if the total number of lots changed with the plan refinement. Mike Burke confirmed the total number of lots changed, but the total amount of land preserved for agricultural use has not changed. Mr. Gignoux asked about a 20’ right-of-way for a walking trail from Hinesburg Road to Pond Road. Mr. Burke stated the right-of-way would have to follow the fence line just outside where the land gets wet. More work is needed on siting the corridor. There is no reason why the path could not be 10’ wide and sited without cutting trees. The path could be flagged and surveyed in this fashion.

Chris Neme asked if the structures are visible from Shelburne Pond. Mike Burke stated the structures will not be invisible, but will not be intrusive. The houses will likely be most visible in the wintertime when the foliage is off the trees. With the leaves on the trees, it is estimated there will be approximately 30% visibility. The screening is similar to that of the Wildwood subdivision. The structures will blend into the background view. Chris Neme asked about VAST trails across the property. Mr. Burke stated permission by the landowner is granted to the snowmobilers on a year-to-year basis. The trail is along the hedgerow this year. Mr. Neme asked if the homeowners association will decide on VAST use of the property. Mike Burke stated the owner of Lot #8 will make the decision (Lot #8 will not be part of the homeowners association). Lot #8 has a right-of-way to a common driveway, access to Hinesburg Road, and a deeded easement on Frogs End Road as well. A portion of land could be made part of Lot #8 in order to allow direct access to Pond Road, suggested Mr. Burke. Mr. Neme asked about retaining trees for screening on Lot #7. Mr. Burke agreed there could be a stipulation of no tree cutting.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a supplemental staff report, dated 3/13/03. Dean Pierce asked if the path/trail was shown on the preliminary plan. Mike Burke stated a primitive 10’ path is anticipated in the corridor along the westerly boundary, weaving, picking the best places to walk. The path will cross the wetlands at some point and go into the trees and along the fence line to intersect the path corridor leading to Pond Road. Cutting trees and grading for the path is not envisioned. The path will be open to public use. The easement would be held by the Town of Shelburne.

Dean Pierce pointed out the 75’ boundary notation has been omitted on the plan in places. Robert Platt, 1271 Pond Road, noted the site plans show Brian Roberts as an adjacent landowner, and this is not the case. Mr. Platt expressed concern the new landowner did not receive notice of the hearing because he is not present. Staff noted the error is likely due to the land transfer being relatively new (i.e. records are not yet updated). Jeremy Matosky mentioned his address was listed incorrectly and he did not receive the notice of the meeting.

Dean Pierce asked about an alternate location of the road from the north. Mike Burke replied there are wetlands in the area. Mr. Pierce noted Public Works will be looking for a 24’ wide road (town standard). Also, the Fire Chief mentioned having a pond on-site for fire protection. Claude LaPierre interjected the dry hydrant at Shelburne Pond that was promised years ago has not yet been provided.

PUBLIC INPUT
There was a question about the VAST trail being located on the land held by the Land Trust. Reg Gignoux stated there is a conservation easement to the Land Trust for the land, but permission for a VAST trail is still granted by the property owner at the property owner’s discretion. This also applies to permission for motorized vehicles for recreation purposes on the property. Rick Peterson explained the meaning of a conservation easement to the Land Trust (the purpose is to keep the land in agricultural use to the most reasonable extent possible; the land can not be developed without prior approval from the Land Trust).

Bob Manchester, 126 Pond Road, asked about the threshold of vehicles to invoke paving Pond Road, noting the dirt road helps control the speed of cars. Reg Gignoux stated the Planning Commission would not likely make paving the road a condition of approval. Dean Pierce noted paving was discussed at the initial sketch plan review (July, 2001) relative to the impact of construction vehicles versus volume of traffic. The staff notes from the July staff report were reviewed with regard to drainage, culverts, and the condition of the road. Mr. Manchester suggested access to the lots from Hinesburg Road rather than Pond Road since the traffic from the development combined with the existing traffic on Pond Road could mandate paving Pond Road. Mike Burke pointed out with access from Hinesburg Road, the road would bisect the best agricultural land on the parcel, and the goal is to preserve agricultural land. Also, it is not likely a permit (Act 250) would be granted for a road crossing prime agricultural soils. The existing farm road is being improved for access. A traffic count was done and the additional traffic will be insignificant and not impact the level of service (level of service will remain high).

Bill Jokela, 724 Pond Road, pointed out another eight houses doubles what exists between the site and Dorset Street. Hilda White corrected the number to five more houses. Mr. Jokela asked about the agricultural easement, and the likelihood the land will continue to be farmed without a farmstead on the site (the agricultural land and farmstead are at the north end and south end of the parcel). Mike Burke explained the agricultural land was done as a separate package to clearly define the Land Trust easement, but either the existing farmstead or agricultural land has potential to be a farm. It is most likely a farm would be set up off of Hinesburg Road since the old farmstead to the north is obsolete. Mr. Jokela expressed doubt the farmstead and agricultural land would be used together as a farm if the other lots are sold for housing.

Judi Manchester, 126 Pond Road, asked who allows use of the agricultural land, and who owns the 166 acres of agricultural land. Rick Peterson stated the landowner will allow use of the land, and the acreage is a separate lot for sale. Mike Burke clarified the 166 acres is a lot that can be sold. The applicant has interest in preserving the open land which can only be used for agriculture. Tom Bushey (applicant) explained the theory is whomever buys Lot #1 or Lot #7 will also buy Lot #8 with the restricted use. Ms. Manchester pointed out farmers in the area lease the land presently.

Mr. Manchester again expressed concern about the development forcing the issue of paving Pond Road, recognizing the town will make the final decision. Mr. Manchester urged the Planning Commission to consider the incremental cost of an access road from Hinesburg Road to the cost of paving Pond Road. Pond Road is four miles long and a natural resource area. The road is very pleasant except during high traffic periods.

Thea Platt, 1271 Pond Road, suggested the farm road from Hinesburg Road be accessible for use during construction to avoid using Pond Road. Reg Gignoux noted the town has mentioned access on the west side of Pond Road.

Jeremy Matosky, 68 Summerfield Road (adjacent to Lot #7), asked how Lot #7 relates to the Boutan development and the path being proposed. Reg Gignoux stated the path location has not been set (the engineers are still working on siting). Mr. Matosky pointed out there is a right-of-way for a path along the Shelburne/Hinesburg Road. Mr. Gignoux noted the applicant stated their wish to tie into the existing easement along the Shelburne/Hinesburg Road path easement. Mr. Matosky requested the building envelopes be reoriented and refined to maintain the ridge, views, and screening. The farmstead lot has a building envelope and barn, but no land. If this lot is sold, then Lot #7 would not be salable as a farm as proposed, and Lot #8 would not have access to the barn. Reg Gignoux commented the buyer of Lot #7 or Lot #1 might also purchase the agricultural land. Mr. Matosky questioned presenting the lot as a farm lot when it likely will be a single-family lot. The Planning Commission should look at the impact of a single-family lot.

Mr. Jokela commented having a house at the barn may increase the likelihood of a farm, but if not, then the existing buildings will likely go to disrepair. Gerry Guillemette, 6583 Route 16, stated the barn off Hinesburg Road is in disrepair presently.

There were no further comments.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Sketch Plan, Swenson Land & Cattle, 1250 Pond Road (SUB03-04)
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Chris Neme, to grant sketch plan approval to Swenson Land & Cattle, LLC for an eight lot subdivision as shown on plans presented with the condition the following information be submitted as part of preliminary plan review:
1. an erosion control and stormwater management plan;
2. a sewage disposal plan reviewed and approved by a professional engineer with detailed description of any plans for combined septic systems;
3. input from emergency service providers, the recreation department, and the schools regarding their ability to serve the project;
4. an estimate of the anticipated number of elementary, middle, and high school students that would be generated by the project;
5. information about the homeowners association;
6. details on the management objectives for lands subject to proposed agricultural and conservation easements, and third parties willing to hold the proposed easements;
7. restriction of tree cutting along the ridge adjacent to the northern most building site for Lot #7 to maximize the shielding of buildings to neighbors to the west, and tree cutting restriction to maximize shielding and minimize views as much as possible of houses on Lot #2 and Lot #3 from Shelburne Pond;
8. modification of Lot #8 to include a strip of land approximately 15’ wide along the eastern boundary of the property formerly owned by “Roberts” in order to accommodate a pedestrian and/or snowmobile trail.
VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre returned to the Commission. Mr. Peterson resumed the duties of Chairman.

3. SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDMENT, VERMONT ZEN CENTER, 480 THOMAS ROAD (SP02-01R)
Dave Marshall and Jed Graef appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Dave Marshall explained the impact on construction if the wastewater system must be built prior to construction per approval condition #3. There is a slew of required state permits to secure. Mr. Marshall requested the Commission eliminate or amend condition #3 to allow construction to proceed. Jed Graef noted Vermont Labor & Industry will not allow use of the building until all permits are in place.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/13/03. Dean Pierce stated the concerns of the Town Engineer have been addressed, and with other reviews, there will be plenty of oversight of the project.

PUBLIC INPUT
There were no comments on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Site Plan Approval Amendment, Vermont Zen Center, 480 Thomas Road (SP02-01R)
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to amend condition of approval #3 to read: “Prior to the occupancy of the building addition, the applicant shall submit a letter certifying that the water supply and wastewater disposal systems have been tested and constructed in accordance with the approved plans and all applicable state and federal permits.” VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. DISCUSSION:POSSIBLE ZONING & SUBDIVISION BYLAW CHANGES
The Commission reviewed a map showing the R-3 area. There are 330 lots in R-3 of which 200 lots are less than 100,000 s.f., and of that number, 175 lots are residential with possibly 20 lots vacant and build-able. There are 43 lots between 100,000 s.f. and 200,000 s.f., but there is not much chance for developing those that are not already residential. Research of the records did not reveal when lots were created, but it is conceivable some lots were formed as a result of PRDs. There was discussion of the language related to lot coverage. Chris Neme suggested adding “the lesser of 10% or 5,000 s.f. coverage”. The Commission agreed. Dean Pierce will revise the language.

Regarding fees, the draft language of the bylaw has been reviewed by the Town Attorney. Notice to the applicant can be either verbal or written. Legal review/fees are not included. Rick Peterson suggested it be determined whether the town will seek technical assistance on an application as part of sketch plan review, and then the applicant can respond. Chris Neme suggested amending the third paragraph of the bylaw to state a threshold trigger. Dean Pierce will draft language.

Regarding notification of neighbors, the Town Attorney feels expanding notification beyond statutory requirements may cause problems. There was discussion of posting a sign on the property indicating a zoning permit is secured (e.g. large red “Z”) and where on the property a sign should be posted so it is readable from the street. There was continued lengthy discussion of the matter of notification of adjacent property owners. Public hearing requirements under 24VSA§1775.1(a) and (b) were referenced.

5. OTHER BUSINESS and CORRESPONDENCE
There was no other business before the Commission.

6. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Chris Neme, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

----

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MARCH 27, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairman; Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Chris Neme, Kay Kraushaar, Fred Schmidt. (Reg Gignoux was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Name Address
Tom Gresham Shelburne News
Dave Marshall CEA/Shelburne Cliffs
Fletcher Bundy Woodbine Rd., Shelburne
Chris Walbridge John St., Shelburne
Stacy Walbridge John St., Shelburne
Robert Rushford Shelburne Cliffs
Elizabeth Thomas Harbor Rd., Shelburne
Reid Grayson Morgan Dr., Shelburne
Staige Davis So. Burlington/Shelburne Cliffs
Mark Neagley Heritage Dr., Shelburne
Linda Vail Vieques, PR/Shelburne Cliffs

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of March 13, 2003
2. PRD Sketch Plan Review, Shelburne Cliffs Partnership/Benchmark Shelburne Senior Housing, LLC, 333 Morgan Drive (SUB03-05)
3. Discussion/Action: Zoning and Subdivision Bylaw Changes
4. Other Business and Correspondence
5. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rick Peterson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2003
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the 3/13/03 minutes with the following corrections:
Globally correct the spelling of “Eric Morris”;
Page 4, Public Input, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence – add “accessed via Pond Road” to the end of the sentence;
Page 4, Public Input, 4th paragraph, 5th sentence – change “Tom Bushey” to “Eric Morris”.
VOTING: unanimous (5 -0) [Claude LaPierre not present for vote.]; motion carried.

2. PRD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, SHELBURNE CLIFFS PARNERSHIP/BENCHMARK SHELBURNE SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, 333 MORGAN DRIVE (SUB03-05)
Dave Marshall, Staige Davis, Mark Neagley, Linda Vail, and Robert Rushford appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Staige Davis briefly reviewed the proposal for 11 residential units in condominium ownership at the former “Pillars” site. The existing footprint of the historical home and the newer addition will be used, but the look of the addition will be changed to better match the character of the historic house. The house porch will be restored. The neighbors have been contacted and are in support of the plan. To benefit the neighbors, a section of Morgan Drive will be moved to the east, and the pool and tennis court will be moved to the north to create more of a buffer. It is anticipated the units may be seasonal homes for some, and the average age will like be 50 years or older.

Linda Vail reviewed drawings of the proposed changes to the addition to better match the historic structure (the addition will look like a carriage barn). The residential two-bedroom units in the addition will be an average of 2,000 s.f. There is a third floor attic space in the historic building that will become lofts or studio space for the residential units in the building. In the basement of the historic house, there are cisterns and some space that could be used for common storage.

Mark Neagley stated his review of the historic structure showed the building to be in good shape. The units within the house will follow the vertical lines of support so very little of the original work will need to be changed. The building will be brought up to fire and safety code (sprinklers, new plumbing and wiring). Mr. Neagley pointed out the proposal follows the principles of smart growth by restoring the vitality of the building and clustering residential units. The project blends with the neighborhood. Changes to the addition include adding six feet of wall height and raising the roof a corresponding amount. The height of the addition will be lower than the main house. It is anticipated to take a year to complete the renovations.

Dave Marshall noted the proposal would have less of an impact than the previous use at the Pillars as a nursing home with 38 units, 16 staff, and supporting services. With the current proposal, there are two new small garages proposed for the property, and an existing garage 40’ from the property line to be removed. A waiver of 4’ from the 50’ buffer will be sought for the garages. No additional capacity (water/sewer) from the existing infrastructure is needed for the proposal.

Rick Peterson asked about density and questioned how the application qualifies as a PRD. Dave Marshall explained multi-family residential units are being consolidated in one area to preserve open space on the parcel rather than having single-family lot clusters. The proposal is less than the allowable maximums per the Code, and will improve the neighborhood. The neighbors are supportive, and it is a good use of the property. Robert Rushford reviewed the previous approval for a 38-unit nursing home on the site and the volume of associated traffic, contending “grandfathering” of the multi-family residential use of the property applies. Mr. Rushford also cited the Lowe case dealing with the conversion of existing structures into condominium form of ownership. Dave Marshall also commented regarding the lot area minimum for the R-3 zone. Mr. Marshall indicated that the correlation between the per unit requirement and the lot size requirement is not clear in the bylaw, which simply says 200,000 s.f. for all “other uses.” For other districts, the bylaw includes per unit requirements for residences in a multi-family configuration. In response, Rick Peterson referenced Section 700 of the bylaw, which indicates that the purpose of the district is to provide “sufficient space for low density residential development.” Mr. Rushford felt Section 700 to be a policy statement that does not specify how development is to be regulated. Mr. Rushford then discussed the non-complying structure provisions of the bylaw. A non-conforming use in a non-complying structure is regulated with regard to setbacks and density. A non-complying structure can not be extended without approval from the Zoning Board, but if the extension meets setbacks, then an approval is not necessary. The nursing home had 38 residential units, and the new proposal is for only 11 units. Mr. Rushford stated the historic house will not sell as a single family home, and 11 units are needed to make the renovation feasible. The only other option is to raze the house structure and sell the six-acre lot as a single-family lot.

The East Lake development with five units was mentioned as a possible example of how similar development has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the past. Rick Peterson requested a copy of the legal brief prepared by Robert Rushford on the proposal. It was noted the project would go through Act 250 review which was required for the addition.

STAFF REPORT
The Commission received a written staff report, dated 3/27/03. Dean Pierce noted he will contact various town committees about the project (Historic Preservation, Paths Committee) as appropriate. Legal guidance on the application has been obtained from the Town Attorney. A written opinion from Town Attorney will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission agreed a site visit would be beneficial.

PUBLIC INPUT
Reid Grayson, Morgan Drive, expressed concern about the impact on his view easements to the east with the road being moved, though it is desirable to increase the buffer between the houses and the road.

Elizabeth Thomas, Harbor Road, supported having the road moved farther away from her property, but asked that the proposed road location be staked for viewing.

There was discussion of access to the beach. The site will have its own beach access. There were no further comments.

DELIBERATION/DECISION

PRD Sketch Plan, Shelburne Cliffs, 333 Morgan Drive (SUB03-05)
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to schedule a site visit on March 29, 2003, at 9 a.m. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to continue the PRD Sketch Plan application by Shelburne Cliffs Partnership/Benchmark Shelburne Senior Housing, LLC, for 11 residential units in condominium ownership at 333 Morgan Drive until April 10, 2003. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

3. DISCUSSION/ACTION:ZONING & SUBDIVISION BYLAW CHANGES
Dean Pierce reported the Town Attorney reviewed the proposed language on lot coverage in R-3 and made necessary amendments. Echoing the earlier discussion of the Pillars project, Mr. Pierce indicated that the practice in Shelburne with regard to lot coverage in R-3 is to interpret the minimum lot size as the maximum density. The Town Attorney also reviewed the proposed language for collection of fees and added a statement saying there will be a lien on the property recorded in the land records if fees are not paid. Regarding notification of neighbors and posting a sign, following discussion, the Commission decided to leave the language as written and gather public input at the public hearing.

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Chris Neme, to warn a public hearing on April 24, 2003 regarding proposed zoning and subdivision bylaw changes as presented. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. OTHER BUSINESS and CORRESPONDENCE
On-site sewage disposal ordinance Modification
The Selectboard will be discussing the modification of the Town’s on site sewage disposal ordinance to reflect new state standards governing the design of on-site septic systems.

Wake Robin Sewer Capacity
The non-residential (health center) component of the Wake Robin project has received an allocation from the Selectboard. The Town manager has indicated to the applicant that the residential component of the project may use unused excess capacity from phase one of the Wake Robin development.

PLACE Program
Announcement was made of the upcoming presentations and field trips around Shelburne through the PLACE Program. April 9th/12th is the first presentation/field trip. Postcards advertising the events are available. Contact Sue Dickson for more information.

STAT
Fred Schmidt gave an update on the information to be presented in May by the STAT Committee (demographic overview, school board significant facts, traffic data, and historic review of data), and asked each Planning Commissioner to highlight three significant decisions, in their opinion, during their individual tenure on the Planning Commission. Rick Peterson urged the Commissioners to get involved as individuals and support STAT and the presentation event, perhaps even being a facilitator on the day of the presentations in May, since the effort by the STAT Committee is to benefit the Shelburne Planning Commission.

VELCO
Following discussion, Dean Pierce will contact Velco to request a presentation on the new transmission lines (pole location, configuration of poles, and such) before the Planning Commission.

5. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.