MEMBERS PRESENT:       Jim Dudley, Chairperson; Lisa Levine, Jim Talley, Chris Neme. (Chris Boyd was absent.)

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Betsy Cieplicki, Recreation Director; Craig Wooster, Fire Chief

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bill Hoadley, Richard Ranaldo, Jim Pease, Jeremy Matosky, Debra Bell, Jim Kleptz, Steven Dickens, George Faris, Gregg Beldock, Joseph Fallon, Rebecca Stearn, and others.

 

Mr. Dudley called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

 

Additions to agenda: Item 9.a - Opportunity Block Grant Resolution; Item 9.b - Liquor License Approvals.

 

Bill Hoadley, Shelburne resident, reported the State of Vermont approved a labor services grant for a watershed partnership on a project to sample water quality.  A copy of the draft report related to storm water issues will be posted at Town Hall.  One study will identify potential problems to be addressed.  Volunteers will take samples from the Monroe Brook watershed.  Lisa Levine asked about the sources of the pollutants.  Mr. Hoadley replied “hot spots” have been identified. Monitoring over a period of years will provide historical data on the LaPlatte River watershed.  Problem areas identified can be addressed.  The report has been circulated and interested parties can contact the Planning Office or Mr. Hoadley to volunteer. Paul Bohne noted it will be helpful to have baseline data before starting any work in Hullcrest or anywhere else.  Mr. Hoadley mentioned the University of Vermont is also doing interesting work identifying problem areas.

 

Rich Ranaldo, VTrans, gave an update on Route 7 reconstruction and the survey conducted last year. Three out of four people are satisfied with the work. Two items were highlighted out of the 1800 responses received. Concerns regarding flaggers centered on how cars from side roads were let into traffic and uniformed traffic officers were not leaving their vehicles or patrolling traffic in a vigorous manner. The concerns will be addressed. Notices will be posted on the project website regarding upcoming activities. Suggestions from the informational meeting on 4/5/05 included listing an emergency telephone number on the website. The goal this year is to substantially complete the Shelburne portion of the project. Activities are occurring on the east side of the project site including pavement excavation, installation of sewer and water lines, and replacing the Monroe Brook culvert. Bay Road will close April 25^th and reopen May 27^th. Following meetings with the town, school, and emergency services, a strategy was developed with regard to the closing of Bay Road.  Signs will be placed along Shelburne Point, Route 7, Harbor Road and in the village announcing that Bay Road is closed.  Police officers will manage traffic at Bay Road, Falls Road, and Harbor Road during peak traffic hours.  Bayfield Road/Bay Road intersection will be closed. There will be a padlocked emergency gate only opened for emergency services and the school bus.  Residents from area neighborhoods will have access to Route 7 though Bayfield Road to Maple Leaf Lane.  Flyers will be sent to Bayfield Road residents regarding the plans.  Neighborhoods west of Route 7 that are directly affected will receive the notice as well. The project involves replacing the Monroe Brook culvert and installing new sewer lines along Bay Road. The current culvert diameter is 14’. The base of the replacement culvert will set below the streambed to assist fish movement.  There was discussion of blocking Bay Road at the railroad underpass as an alternative, allowing residents on the west side of the blocked road to travel back to town and those on the east side to use Maple Leaf Lane. Speed bumps installed on Bayfield Road will discourage speeding. Improvements to Bay Road will eliminate the dip in the road coming up to the culvert.  The culvert is precast in 21 pieces, which will make installation easier once the site is prepared. It will take one month to complete the sewer line and culvert work. The construction crew will work six days a week. The work schedule will depend on the weather. A meeting with the contractor, utility companies, public relations, and town staff is scheduled for Thursday, 04/14/05.

 

A resident asked if there could be a delay in closing the road.  Mr. Bohne stated different times were considered without a clear choice becoming apparent. From Memorial Day onward traffic increases to the fishing access, along Harbor Road, and to the Shelburne Shipyard. There is no good time to close the road. There are peak traffic hours in the morning at the Harbor Road intersection.  The Shelburne Police Chief thought it would be more effective to have a police officer at the intersection to manage traffic flow. There was further discussion of the most effective block of Bay Road traffic and where most of the traffic is headed during peak traffic hours (school, north toward Burlington).

 

Mr. Bohne introduced Jim Pease, ANR, Jeremy Matosky and Deborah Bell, Trudell Consulting Engineers. A brief history of the Hullcrest stormwater project was reviewed. The Town’s WIP permit was put in abeyance after an appeal. The Town has continued to work with Trudell Engineering. A study was done. Mr. Pease explained the regional stormwater program process and provided the EPA website, www.sharewaterway.org, for national information. There are two projects in Shelburne:  Hullcrest and Longmeadow Drive.  Hullcrest must be done by 2006. The feasibility study is complete.  Act 140 opened the door for an “offset” project under a different permitting strategy. Applications for federal grants will be submitted to pay for the targeted projects. 

 

Mr. Neme asked if developers of new subdivisions that will add stormwater runoff to the Lake Champlain watershed will be required to provide an offset site. Mr. Matosky confirmed this, noting funding will not be available to a private developer.  The grant funding will pay for existing projects that do not have stormwater permits now.  Lowe’s and large commercial projects construct fully complying stormwater systems. Mr. Bohne clarified the grant source is EPA money.  STAG money provides 55% of the funding while the remaining 45% might be state seed money of $500,000 to get the project rolling.

 

Mr. Matosky stated the Longmeadow Drive project is on a smaller magnitude, and explained what a “Net Zero” sediment discharge means. Runoff drainage into the Monroe Brook basin from developments was reviewed.  Hullcrest Park was selected to treat the water. Mr. Matosky reviewed treatment methods and the proposed underground system design. Park features, with the exception of some trees, will be replaced after installation of the stormwater treatment system. Fill will be brought in to increase the grade by the soccer field. Mr. Neme asked if measurements protocol will be in place for “treated” water going back into Monroe Brook. Mr. Pease stated an assumption model will be used versus monitoring the discharge water flow. The model gives rates of sediment-per-acre. Maintenance (cleaning out mud from the system) is recommended on a three-year cycle. Mr. Matosky stated the study analysis includes some of flooding issues and a trunk line. The proposed system will pick up about 53 acres of development area. Areas outside of the project site fall under existing stormwater permits and runoff will be targeted in a different framework.  Mr. Neme asked if the project will collect 100% of the runoff into the treatment area. Mr. Matosky replied the proposed project will pick up 53 acres and the collected water will be treated at 100 percent. 

 

A resident in the audience expressed concern about erosion downstream on the banks of Monroe Brook because the water flow is not being slowed, just treated. Mr. Matosky explained per the guidelines for treating runoff, the flow will be slowed somewhat. It was pointed out the stormwater system for the Boulder Hill development does not appear to slow the flow of runoff. Sediment and erosion continues downstream.  The LaPlatte River will continue to erode at the same rate and will get wider.  Mr. Pease stated there are different design stages for pre-development mapping (of flows). Stormwater management systems are designed to trap 3.5” of rainwater. The Boulder Hill development was built before the new procedures in 2002. Also, the stormwater system for Boulder Hill was designed to trap 2” of rainstorm water. There is no way to match pre-development water volumes, but existing soils on the site are reviewed and effort is made to match the conditions as close as possible.  The observation was made that if there is no way to build stormwater systems to match pre-development conditions, it follows there is no way the lake can get cleaned up if developers keep building houses.  The problem is not being solved.  Mr. Matosky clarified the intention is to deal with developments that have no stormwater management systems currently.

 

An audience member asked about the percentage of sediment taken out per the models.  Mr. Matosky replied approximately 45,000 pounds per year of sediment.  If 80% of water volume is captured, 32,000 pounds of sediment will be removed. Treatment will not remove Monroe Brook from the impaired waterway list, but it is a first step. The state has a plan to improve the watershed. Copies of the report are available.

 

In response to a question about water infiltration into the ground, Mr. Matosky explained there is a curtain around the system and water does not leak out.

 

Mr. Bohne explained the project time frame and cost of $545,000.  STAG grants are not a possibility. The project is adjacent to the J.A. McDonald site on Route 7 which will be shutting down soon. It is possible for the contractor to cut through the rear of the (Route 7) construction site to the stormwater project. The cost estimate for fill is $55,000. It may be possible to use the stormwater project site as the Route 7 fill site to reduce costs by $55,000. There still remains a short fall of $40,000. Board approval is needed to apply for permits and to develop the bid process.  The town can apply for STAG funding to reimburse 55% for engineering costs. Mr. Pease noted that developers might be interested in paying into the bank because they can not build until they have a permitted and operating stormwater project.  Developers might be interested in purchasing some of the created capacity.  Mr. Neme asked if annual maintenance of sediment is the town’s responsibility. Mr. Bohne stated maintenance is a town cost and involves renting a vac truck at $1000 per year. Mr. Neme asked about toxicity (in the removed sediment). Mr. Matosky stated mud material from the sediment chamber can be landfilled. 

 

Ms. Levine asked if the stormwater requirement that development capture 100% of stormwater satisfies the concerns of water volume and erosion, and if the Hullcrest Park system will relax the standards by 20%.  Mr. Pease explained the “net zero” target has to be met. A developer will need to purchase capacity. A “capacity bank” is being created in that a certain amount of sediment is being removed, creating capacity which could be sold to a developer. The money from the purchase of capacity will provide funding for the next project. The state is developing a hydrology plan to look at returning watersheds to their natural conditions.

 

 

Will Dodge, Unicell, and Nick Papa, Nextell, appeared before the Board. Mr. Dodge explained that RCC Atlanta, Nextell and Sprint companies are seeking a one-year extension of the current lease. Mr. Dodge gave a brief history of lease renewals and conditions. The companies have explored alternative locations in good faith and asked Board to consider locating all companies on a new monopole tower on the Mechwin Corporation property. The Town will lose revenue from leasing space on the water tower. A new tower may require lights and/or markings per FAA regulations. If the Town agrees to an extension of the lease, then the telecommunications companies will request a change of the lease from one year to five years. Regarding alternative locations, RCC contracted with Giant Solutions to locate potential sites with the same coverage as the water tower (sites included Spear Street, Pierson Library, Shelburne Museum, Hillside Ave., Teddy Bear Factory, American Morgan Horse Association property). There has been a coordinated effort among the other companies. The next best site had 37% less coverage. The Spear Street site below Barstow Drive will produce 50% coverage. There was either no response or a negative response from the other sites.  Wake Robin was not considered as a site.

 

When the Mechwin monopole was considered, it was found the town ordinance requires antennas to be flush mounted.  Act 250 requires 10’ between antennas. It is estimated a pole height of 140’ would be required for five carriers.  There was discussion of spacing between antennas, the location of the first antennae on the pole (75’ mark), the slope test failure and FAA requirements for lighting and marking monopoles if a slope test is failed. A second slope test was done by Jetsome and it was found an 86’ pole would fail the slope test on the Shelburne Corporation site. The FAA can be asked for the least intrusive lighting/marking as possible. 

 

At an October, 2004 Selectboard meeting, there were questions about the distance of the tower to the closest residence and whether all carriers can share the same antenna apparatus. There is 132’ between the antenna and the closest residence. Regarding the location issue, RCC posed the question to Giant Solutions and the consultant reported there are a host of technical reasons why it would not work. The technology is not available to achieve the desired results. There are multiple couplers for one carrier, but the quality of power and frequencies would be lost so more sites would be required to boost service. Regarding other carriers locating on the tower, US Cellular has indicated interest, but Verizon has not. 

 

A resident asked what the height of a proposed tower will be, if the water tower is the best site, and if the carriers will continue to seek other sites.  Mr. Neme asked about the town’s legal obligations.  Mr. Bohne said the town is obliged to provide sites that are serviceable to the Shelburne. Mr. Dodge stated the water tower and Mechwin sites are the optimal because of the topography, population patterns, and Route 7. A copy of the Giant Solutions survey will be provided to the town’s consultant. If Wake Robin is a potential site, then RCC will consider it.

 

 

A brief history of the impact fee matter was reviewed. George Faris, attorney, noted the Selectboard can grant relief from Aid-In-Capacity fees for affordable housing projects within the sewer district. The Harrington Circle affordable housing project meets the definition of housing per the town provisions. The project was built with private funding, not federal, state, or town money. Impact fees were not added to the price of the housing units. The developer, Gregg Beldock, has incurred other costs as well. There is a lean margin for the project. The applicant is seeking a 90% Aid-In-Capacity fee waiver (fee for the project totals $48,000). 

 

The Aid-In-Capacity fee was explained (established in 1992 and collected to pay for long term sewer system improvements). Educational and recreation impact fees are collected in advance for capital projects. The fees are similar, but not the same. Mr. Talley asked if there is precedence for waiving the Aid-In-Capacity fee. Mr. Bohne could not recall an occasion when the fee was waived. The fee is imposed at the permit level and requests for waiver should occur in advance of the permit. Town staff will research how other towns handle waiver requests.

 

 

Joe Fallon, attorney, Rebecca Stearn, Shelburne Bay Senior Living manager, and Gregg Beldock, developer, appeared before the Selectboard. Mr. Fallon reviewed the denial of a request for relief from recreational impact fees for the Shelburne Bay Senior Center in the amount of $30,723.93.  There are 47 new units of housing, including 14 units of assisted care, 26 residential units, and seven independent living units. A survey on the use of walking paths by the independent residents showed the town’s recreational fields are not used.  The senior center has its own walking paths. Many of the residents are not able to use the walking facilities. Mr. Fallon advised a 50% reduction per the Shelburne ordinance is appropriate. By law, impact fees are charged for the use of facilities. 

 

Mr. Neme asked if the applicant had a legally binding document stating the facility will continue as a senior center for the next 30 years. Mr. Fallon stated to acquire a license there are certain requirements to be met, but it is not certain about the 30 year timeframe.

 

It was noted the Planning Commission felt the residents might be using the facilities with their grandchildren or watching their grandchildren on the recreation fields. Ms. Levine asked about grandchildren of residents at the senior center. Mr. Beldock stated over half of the residents move to the center because their children live in the area, but not necessarily Shelburne.

 

Mr. Fallon acknowledged the process to be followed by the Planning Commission and the Selectboard with regard to waiving fees.  The appeal of the assessment of recreation fees was withdrawn at this time.

 

9.         REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT TAXES  DICKENS  MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. Levine, to waive the delinquent tax penalty of $80.96 for Steven Dickens as presented.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Dickens explained the auto-pay accounts that he tried to establish through his bank without success. Mr. Dickens emphasized his intent to pay his taxes, though he did forget he would not receive a tax bill from the town for the payment installment that was due. CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Dudley. Discussion ceased.  VOTE:  2 ayes, 2 nays; motion did not carry.

 

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. Levine, to waive the delinquent tax penalty of $106.79 for Charles and Paula Schmitt as presented.

DISCUSSION: It was noted the Mr. Schmitt had been ill (for approximately five years) and passed away the end of March, 2005. Staff will research to see if the Schmitt tax bills have typically been paid on time.      CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Dudley. Discussion ceased.  VOTE:  3 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Dudley); motion carried.

 

The Board received a letter from Marie Frost requesting a one time waiver for delinquent tax payment by a new taxpayer. Paul Bohne explained a charter change would be required to allow this provision. Staff will research options.

 

Mr. Bohne explained Opportunities Block Grant resolutions before the Board and noted the project is consistent with the Regional Plan. There is a duly adopted municipal plan. The application also authorizes the Opportunities Credit Union to be the contact organization and to administer the grant. An audit may be required. Peter Frankenburg said some staff time will be needed to prepare for the audit. Mr. Neme asked if the grant funding will help Shelburnewood residents. Mr. Bohne explained the purpose of the grant is to help refinance a mobile home. Rates are high for mobile homes. Residents may be eligible to refinance at a lower rate, refurbish, or if there are credit issues, there are counseling programs to get them more credit worthy. The grant can not be used for land acquisition. 

 

 

 

The Selectboard signed the documents.

 

The Selectboard signed liquor license documents for Shelburne Beverage, Travelodge, Ponderosa Steakhouse, Gillian’s Restaurant, and Chef Ke’s.

 

10.       APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

None.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to approve the minutes of 03/29/05 with the following corrections/additions:

Page 2, 3^rd paragraph, 2^nd sentence - add “Mr. Neme suggested the formula used – with equal weight given to eight indicators that that indicators not appear equally important and other important indicators were not addressed at all – appear highly arbitrary.  For example, the number of jobs in 2010 would be a better single indicator than the use of two indicators, one for existing jobs and one for growth.”;  Page 2, 3^rd paragraph, last line - change to read: “Mr. Talley pointed out that smart growth is embodied somewhat in the recent employment growth factor by shifting housing where growth is taking place.”;  Page 3, last paragraph, section 4 - add: “Mr. Holland concluded that Shelburne should not be treated differently from Underhill in this matter simply by virtue that it is close to Burlington.”;  Page 3, 2^nd paragraph - change to read:  “Hilda White pointed out that there was a correlation between the RPC smart growth study for the entire county in the Regional Plan and it might be worth looking at the plan for smart growth related to housing targets.”   Page 5, MOTION on Pat Button late payment appeal – correct vote to read: “2 ayes, 3 nays”.

VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

Mr. Bohne reported the town was awarded a paving grant from VTrans which must go to the state. The Town adopted standards for repair of culverts in 2001.  The state does not have the town’s standards on file and it may cost the town ten percent of a $6,000 penalty.  Peter Frankenburg researched how the state assesses a CLA. The CLA for Shelburne was determined by the state based on town property assessments over a 3-year time period and recent sale values. Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the list of real estate sales used in the state’s calculations. The town appealed the use of some classifications and other issues related to assessed values. The state agreed with the changes requested with the exception of a property tax exemption (partial exemption given). The CLA was calculated at 101.62% and is now at 101.75 %. The CLA rate impact is two-tenths of a cent lower. The Board must sign the stipulation of agreement for the changed CLA.  Two-tenths of a cent equates to $18,000 in tax revenue. Ms. Levine asked for clarification regarding tax-exempt property. Mr. Frankenburg explained the Town exempted a large church property from property taxes. The state disagreed and exempted only some of the church property. The changes will be put on the 2005 Grand List per state stipulation. The onus will be on the property owner to appeal (to the town or the court). The Town has serious concerns about the practice of the state reversing a town exemption.

 

None.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Accepted,

James Dudley

Chairman

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Jim Dudley, Chairperson; Lisa Levine, Chris Boyd, Chris Neme. (Jim Talley was absent.)

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager, Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bill Hoadley, Joseph Oppenlander, Linda Lavalette, Raymond Wright, Bonnie Castonguay, Bill Potter, Joseph Peila, Michelle Jabbr, Steve Gregory, Wayne King, Jack Galvin, Rich Fitzgerald, Randy Fitzgerald, Eileen Nikel, Terry Kennaugh, Dan Rothenberger Sr., Ryan Denecken, Melissa Denecken, Susan McLellan, Steve Selin, Jim Warden (Shelburne Police Chief), Sue Dixon, Mike Major, Mindy Precourt, David Hall, Dean Pierce (Shelburne Town Planner), Kevin Clayton, Stephen Taylor, John Guidry, Doug Roszman, Tim Singer, Jack Morrish, Barbara Morrish, Sharron Balabarr, James Limanek, Sue Davis (Shelburne News), and others.

 

The Selectboard entered Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing legal matters.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to exit the Executive Session. VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.  The Board came out of Executive Session at 7:05 p.m.

 

Mr. Dudley called the regular meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

 

Agenda additions: 9a) Appeal of the Settlement LaFountain V. Haag and the Town of Shelburne.

Richard Fitzgerald, Mapleleaf Lane resident, expressed concern about speeding cars where Mapleleaf Lane and Bayfield Road are opened to traffic. Also, what was opened is different than proposed. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested adding speed bumps or additional “Stop” signs to control speed as the best solutions. Other signs such as “Children at Play” could be placed on lawns. Mr. Bohne noted Stop signs are enforceable by ordinance. It will take a month to adopt amendments to the existing ordinance in order to legally enforce the Stop sign. 

 

Mindy Precourt spoke on behalf of Annie Hall, Bay Road resident who has concern about speeding cars on the road. Measures to slow traffic at the first corner as cars enter the neighborhood should be in place. A loader with JA McDonald was witnessed speeding through the neighborhood followed by a pickup truck that passed the loader. Also, a FedEx truck barely made the corner due to excessive speed. Residents want something done before a child is killed.

 

Bonnie Castonguay asked about the status of the original agreement that the road would be a 911 emergency entrance only. Mr. Dudley stated following further consideration, the Selectboard decided to open an entrance at Mapleleaf lane for the convenience of the neighborhood. A resident interjected there was agreement among Bayfield Road and Bayview Road residents to access Route 7 from the village. Mr. Bohne pointed out people driving back to the village to access Route 7 will cause more congestion at the intersection of Harbor Road/Route 7.  It is logical for people farther from the village to use the access at Mapleleaf Lane.

 

A resident in the audience recalled the (Bay Road) project originally was to take two weeks to complete, but according to an engineer with JA McDonald, there is other work being done in addition to the culvert replacement and the project will take a month. Mr. Bohne briefly explained the additional work at the Bay Road site and that the engineers have agreed to work six days a week until the job is complete. The contractor agreed to install speed bumps. Staff will ask the police to enforce the speed limit.  Following further discussion, Mr. Bohne said the State will be asked to install speed bumps immediately. The police department will enforce the speed limits, assured Police Chief Warden, but it has been found in other situations that residents are often the ones speeding, not outsiders, and there is no guarantee the speeding will not resume once the police presence is gone.  Mr. Dudley suggested posting a sign at the entrance stating “Open for your convenience, but be appreciative of your neighbors.” 

 

Linda Lavalette, Bay Road resident, requested a key to the gate that blocks Bay Road at the railroad underpass so her husband can drive to the fishing access with their boat. Ms. Lavalette promised to be responsible and will treat having the key as a privilege. Mr. Bohne mentioned concern that control of the access will be lost, and if this becomes an issue, the key must be returned. Ms. Lavalette and Bonnie Gordon will act as gate keepers. Mr. Bohne did not believe that there was any liability risk to the town by giving the residents a key.

 

Christine Armstrong, Bishop Road resident, asked about progress on managing speeding on Bishop Road. Mr. Bohne stated Bishop Road is to be paved this construction season or in the next fiscal year. Striping of the road center and each side lane will be done as a traffic calming measure. If the paving is delayed, the striping will be delayed as well. Ms. Armstrong suggested lowering the speed limit to 25 mph near the O’Neal Kennel and the hill.

 

4.         REVIEW VILLAGE SPEED LIMIT STUDY BY TRANS/OP., INC. AND DISCUSS CHANGING SPEED LIMITS

Mr. Bohne introduced Joseph Oppenlander, Trans/Op., Inc., hired to conduct a speed limit study in the village. Mr. Oppenlander reviewed the locations covered in the speed zone study (six roads/locations plus Harbor Road near the school and Longmeadow Drive). Speed comparison statistics and recommended speeds at the six locations were also reviewed. Speed management includes engineering, enforcement, and education. Results of the study indicate 96% of drivers exceeded the 25 mph speed limit in front of the school on Harbor Road and 91% were speeding on Irish Hill Road. Recommendations include speed enforcement, traffic calming, traffic control techniques (marked and signed crosswalks), stop signs, or perceptual counter measures (features built into the roadway such as narrowed areas, bulb-outs at intersections. Posting an advisory speed limit at Falls Bridge on Irish Hill Road to 25 mph is also recommended.

 

Steve Selin opined the study is flawed because extra features, such as the number of driveways, pedestrians, bike traffic, sidewalk locations, were not considered. It seems the wrong way around that the speed of cars determines the speed limit, commented Mr. Selin. Mr. Oppenlander explained how the speed limit recommendation is determined using the 85^th percentile value of travel speed and consideration of speed limit determinations, stopping sight distances, spacing between intersections, length of the speed zones, and a ‘test’ drive.

 

A resident spoke in support of a lower speed limit in the village to encourage people to settle there and patronize the stores in the village center. Mr. Oppenlander cautioned that limiting speed limits to 25 mph or 30 mph creates a false sense of security.  Other measures must be implemented as well. Ms. Levine pointed out the 1988 Village Plan addressed traffic calming with a promenade or creating a road bridge with a tree canopy. Steve Selin noted the speeding tickets issued by the State Police in the Route 7 construction zone are effective in controlling driving speed. Mr. Selin provided copies of a road design program for speed limits on local roads/streets. There was lengthy discussion of State road design speeds for local roads and streets, posted speed limits (village treated differently from other rural areas), and design speeds of selected values at which various elements of the road area (tangents, flat areas) influence road speeds. Mr. Oppenlander pointed out that the legal speed is 50 mph in Vermont unless otherwise posted. The use of off-peak speed is a normal way to do a traffic study.  Free floating traffic “votes” the speed limits. Some attendees felt that additional enforcement of the posted speed limit is needed versus lowering the speed limit.

 

The percentage of traffic using Marsett/Falls roads as a cut-off around the Route 7 construction was mentioned. A petition was signed by 82 residents against a reduction in the speed limit from 35 mph to 25 mph. The volume of traffic is temporary due to the Route 7 project. Residents have offered their driveways for use by the police while enforcing the speed limit.  Joseph Peila, Mapleleaf Lane resident, suggested posting signs on private property may help slow travelers.  Judy Selin stated the town should be driven by what residents want versus drivers, and asked what can be done to encourage bike/pedestrian traffic. Mr. Oppenlander replied elements in addition to speed limit signs the town can install sidewalks, marked crosswalks, narrowed streets.  Identifying the geometry of the roads studied was not part of the scope of work for the speed limit study, noted Mr. Oppenlander.  A resident observed there are two sides to the issue: bicyclists not abiding by stop signs and joggers dressed in dark clothing while running in low daylight on the road. The police were urged to issue speeding tickets.

 

Doug Roszman, village resident for 25 years, observed the town hired a consultant to do a traffic study using money that was not budgeted. The funds were diverted from other town uses. The results of the study are not supported by a vocal minority. Mr. Roszman urged the Selectboard to consider the town as a whole, not just village residents.  Mr. Selin pointed out other towns in Chittenden County have a 25 mph posted speed limit in the town center. Shelburne is the only town with a 35 mph speed limit in the village center. Mr. Selin referred to statistics on deaths/injuries related to cars traveling in speed zones, noting it takes an extra six seconds to travel 25 mph versus 35 mph.

 

Sue Dixon, resident, stressed the need to balance foot, bike, and car traffic for safety purposes. Ms. Dixon was not in support of cars dictating speed limits.  There was further discussion of controlling driving speeds (traffic calming measures, education).  Mr. Neme noted by law in order to change a speed limit, a traffic study must be done. The town can lower a speed limit without a study, but the speed limit would not be enforceable for five years. Mr. Bohne said the town can install crosswalks with bulb-outs, plant trees, and stripe roads to create bike lanes. There are planned improvements on Falls Road/Church Street. There was discussion of ways to address speeding on Irish Hill Road (increased enforcement, posting advisory speeds on curves especially at the Bean residence, reducing the travel lane to 10’ width, adding a white line on the road side, posting 25 mph at Falls Bridge, and extending the sidewalk to Falls Bridge. Mr. Bohne reviewed the procedure to change the speed limit on Falls Road. Staff will prepare an amendment to the Traffic Ordinance for a first reading at the next Selectboard meeting. A hearing can be held two weeks later and if there are no significant changes, the Board can adopt the ordinance amendment.

 

Nick Cowles explained the proposal for a produce cart to be located on one of the town greens over the summer and fall. A vendor license is needed. The cart will be open for business during the daylight hours and removed at dark. Mr. Cowles said his growing seasons are September/October. There was discussion of vendors and how to control products, and if the proposed cart will compete with other farmer’s markets in the area (Charlotte, Burlington) or with the Shelburne Supermarket.  

 

Brian Bock reviewed his proposal to operate a farmer’s market from late June to October on Saturday mornings in Shelburne. The Burlington farmer’s market is the main competition. Locations have been discussed, such as the horseshoe driveway at the school or the Church Street town green. Mr. Neme spoke in favor of enhancing a pedestrian feeling of the Village. Mr. Dudley expressed concern for competition with Shelburne Market. Mr. Bohne noted the proposal was sent to Steve Clayton, Shelburne Market, for comment. Shelburne has a peddler’s ordinance. Control measures could be amended relative to the type of market. The consensus of the Board is to have the Town Manager move forward with the matter.

 

Sue Davis recalled Steve Clayton had no problem with a similar proposal five years ago as long as the farmer’s market is not an every day operation. Ms. Davis suggested using the train station for the market or the parade grounds. Mr. Bohne said that the state is not interested in anyone using the train station area.

 

Ms. Selin cautioned against having the farmer’s market turn into a flea market. Ms. Selin asked if children would be able to sell handcrafted items at the market. Mr. Denecken explained farm products or other natural products including wool and fleece would qualify as items for sale (versus “Elvis” rugs). A jury could select vendors/products. Mr. Bohne will contact Mr. Bock for further discussion of the farmer’s market.

 

Mr. Bohne reviewed the memo from the Town Planner, dated 04/22/05, outlining the application for a three-year grant funded at $6,350 per year. The town will hire a consultant to draft listed areas of work relative to the MS4 permit.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to authorize Town staff to submit the Local Community Information Fund grant application to hire a consultant to draft Storm Water Ordinance amendments. VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Rick Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson, gave a brief review of Planning Commission functions. The Planning Commission has become mired in dual functions and applications are not getting the attention required. A Development Review Board (DRB) would need to bring meaningful interaction between the DRB and the Planning Commission.  Mr. Bohne explained the proposed DRB obligations (site plan review, subdivision review, design review). The existing Zoning Board of Adjustment would be dissolved. The Planning Commission would take on planning functions, zoning bylaws, subdivision regulations, and town planning.

 

Ms. Levine asked if there would be any benefit to having a Planning Commissioner participating on the DRB each meeting. Mr. Peterson agreed this is an option, but may not be practical. There was discussion of DRB Board membership (current Zoning Board members or Planning Commissioners can apply), opportunity for a joint annual work session, the DRB appointment process and the number of members (seven versus five Zoning Board members), and staff support. Mr. Bohne will draft the DRB proposal for review and comment by the Planning Commission, Zoning Board and Selectboard.

 

Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the proposed FY2006-2011 Capital Budget and Program. There was discussion of the CVU $20 million bond payment (impact fees do not include school renovations, but do cover a new school) and the suggestion to explore adopting impact fees to cover CVU costs. Brian Schupe has been contacted regarding a study to add CVU costs to the Capital Plan. Once the Shelburne Community School comes in with a projected construction cost, then the Capital Plan can be amended. Williston developed a formula for CVU costs and Shelburne could build on that. Mr. Frankenburg explained impact fees were set up to address local school needs and to pay for space occupied by “new” students. Impact fees were adopted before the CVU expansion.

 

Mr. Dudley reported Rob Donahue, Paths Committee, suggested bonding $3 million to complete the entire recreation path system. Funding has been slow. Mr. Bohne estimated debt service to be $300,000 per year on a $3 million bond. Mr. Frankenburg pointed out 45% would be paid through grants and other funds, and the rest through taxes. There was discussion of sidewalks on Church Street/Falls Road and on the east side of the Route 7 Bridge. Mr. Dudley suggested extending the Marsett Road sidewalk to Falls Bridge to access the LaPlatte River Nature area.

9.         APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

MOTION by Ms. Levine, seconded by Mr. Neme, to appoint Jane Osborne McKnight as the Shelburne CCTA Board representative. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

The Selectboard signed the settlement agreement document.

The Selectboard signed approval of Liquor License documents as presented.

 

Page 7, first sentence - add the following sentence: “Mr. Dudley said that the ordinance that applies to Elderly Housing would remain in effect at least 30 years. If the Planning Commission does oppose a waiver, then the Town is obligated to provide a letter of waiver.”

 

Mr. Neme asked for clarification of the cost to provide speed limit signs including labor, and the cost for other signs, such as an advisory sign on the Falls Bridge or “Slow for Children” sign. Mr. Neme also requested the cost and timeline for traffic calming measures in the village, paving and striping on Bishop Road. Mr. Bohne noted Bishop Road improvements are budgeted and scheduled for summer, 2005, but that could change.

 

Mr. Bohne noted the Board has the concept of a “no net loss” affordable housing ordinance to consider. Feedback is needed from the Town Planner.

 

Mr. Boyd expressed uncertainty about the need for a second traffic calming study. Trans/Op could complete a list of measures since Mr. Oppenlander knows the locations. Staff has a list of measures and could add to that list.

 

Mr. Boyd said he would like to apply for a Public Safety Committee nomination versus the regional planning commission position.

 

Mr. Dudley announced the LocalMotion bike trip to Montreal on June 3 & 4, 2005.

 

 

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. 

 

Accepted,

 

Jim Dudley, Selectboard Chairperson