Planning Commission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairman; Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt. (Reg Gignoux was absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Andy Netzel, Dana Farley, Gerry Guillemette, David Palmer, Patrick Leclaire, Roger Guillemette, Lin Stone, Pam Lord, Kerry O’Brien, Ed Biggins, Brendan Biggins, Mike Burke, Gail Albert, Andrea VanHoven, Jenks Senior, Mike Anderson, Bernie Guillemette, Cecile Guillemette, Mary Muinier, Steve Vock.

AGENDA:

1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (9/23/04)

2. Design Review Application and Site Plan Review, Peta Gillian and Sherry Ann Senior/Lin Stone, Jamie Two-Coats Toyshop, 52 Harbor Road (DR04-20 and SP04-06))

3. Final Plan Review, Steven and Carrie Phillip, 711 Bishop Road (SUB03-09)

4. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Ernest Auclair Family Trust/API Properties, Inc., 61 Pond Road (SUB04-08)

5. Other Business, Correspondence

6. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the 9/23/04 minutes with the following correction: Page 9, MOTION (Dunham application) – insert “to remove the viewshed easement” following the words “for amendment”. VOTING: unanimous (5-0) [Tucker Holland not present for vote]; motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION & SITE PLAN REVIEW, PETA GILLIAN AND SHERRY ANN SENIOR/LIN STONE, JAMIE TWO-COATS TOYSHOP, 52 HARBOR ROAD (DR04-20 & SP04-06) Lin Stone, Jenks Senior, and Dana Farley appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Lin Stone explained the plan to move the toy shop from 1 Harbor Road to 52 Harbor Road. The toy shop will be located on the first floor of the building. All the recommendation of the Design Review and Historic Preservation Committee can be met. Parking will be behind the building. There are seven parking spaces. Traffic circulation will be one-way with entry on the east side of the building and exit on the left side by the craft school. There will be yard (lawn) on the front and side of the building. Existing trees will remain, but a tree surveyor will remove branches to increase visibility of the building. There will be some shrubbery added to the site. The same signs (blue ovals with gold lettering) will be used. Ms. Stone described the free standing non-metal sign and post to be located left of the driveway entrance. The sign shows a child holding balloons. The strings of the balloons will conceal the wire to the 150-watt light bulb shining down on the sign. There will be mulch, small shrubs and perennial flowers planted at the base of the sign. Deliveries to the toy shop will be by UPS to the back porch or the front street side, whichever is preferred by the Planning Commission, stated Ms. Stone. A loading dock is not necessary. Ms. Stone mentioned the building owner wants the building and grounds meticulously maintained, having even higher standards than town regulations. Rick Peterson asked about a light on the wall sign. Ms. Stone stated an overhead light shining down on the sign is desired. Mr. Peterson asked if there will be arrows to indicate traffic flow. Ms. Stone stated an arrow painted blue to match the sign and with the words “Entrance Only” could be hung at the bottom of the free standing sign, and a similar directional sign saying “Exit Only” could be hung at the exit driveway. It was noted the two facsimiles of the free standing sign show the words “Parking in Rear” and “Entrance”. The applicant indicated both messages may have to be added to the sign. Dean Pierce suggested three small directional signs (arrows) indicating entrance, parking, and exit. There could also be signs posted on the fence and/or garage. Rick Peterson urged that there be appropriate signage installed at the entrance, parking area, and exit points to delineate parking and one-way traffic circulation. Fred Schmidt asked about the entrance to the toy shop. Jenks Senior stated the entryway on the east side (the porch set back from the road) is the entrance.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received staff reports for the design review application and site plan review, both dated 10/14/04. Dean Pierce stated in order to meet the less than three footcandle requirement of the town, a bulb of less than 150 watts is needed. Dana Farley pointed out the rendering showing the light is for reference only. The actual light on the sign will be concealed and downshielded, and will glow with a soft color.

PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review & Site Plan, Sign and First Floor Conversion for Toy Shop, 52 Harbor Road, Jamie Two-Coats/Lin Stone (DR04-20 &SP04-06) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to grant design plan approval to Gillian and Sherry Senior/Lin Stone for one lighted free standing sign and one façade sign at 52 Harbor road substantially similar to the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. The façade sign shall be mounted on the east side of the building using four spacers to place the sign one quarter inch away from the building. 2. The background and lettering of the free standing sign shall be in the same colors as the façade sign (dark blue and yellow/gold respectively). 3. The free standing sign shall be located either within a mulched bed or upon a pedestal to protect the base from possible snow removal or lawn maintenance damage. 4. Lighting shall comply with the lighting section of the Shelburne zoning bylaws. 5. One light may be applied above the façade sign pursuant to approval by the Design Review and Historic Preservation Committee and without further need to return to the Planning Commission for subsequent approval. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant site plan approval to Lin Stone/Peta Gillian and Sherry Senior for the conversion of a first floor apartment to commercial/retail space for a toy store at 52 Harbor Road consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. Zoning amendments adopted by the Shelburne Selectboard on 9/28/04 take effect on 10/20/04, and in the event the amendments do not take effect, this approval shall become null and void. 2. The project must receive conditional use approval from the Shelburne Zoning Board of Adjustment. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised site plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Office, and this revised plan shall depict the location of the free standing sign as well as any landscaping required by the Planning Commission to screen trash receptacles and/or parking. 4. Any new lighting on the site shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the zoning bylaws. 5. Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office; this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions. 6. Installation of three directional signs shall be done at the entrance, within the parking area, and at the exit to delineate the parking and one-way traffic circulation. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

3. FINAL PLAN REVIEW, STEVEN AND CARRIE PHILLIP, 711 BISHOP ROAD (SUB03-09) Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Steve Vock reviewed the changes to the site plan, including the reduction of Lot #3 to less than 10 acres, the addition of a turnout past the driveway on Lot #1 and a suitable turnaround at the house site per the Fire Chief’s suggestion, and additional landscaping along the proposed driveway to screen the Lord property.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/14/04. There was discussion of access through Beaver Creek. Steve Vock stated another wetlands permit from the state would be needed, and it is unlikely a second permit would be issued. Steve Phillip mentioned the significant investment being made for the driveway and site (estimated cost of the driveway is $35,000 and blasting cost is $25,000), and concern for the loss of the investment if access is from Beaver Creek Road in the future.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Pam Lord reviewed the terms of the agreement relative to the driveway to include plantings to screen her property, staking the driveway area (this has been done), and notification before blasting is to occur. There are existing natural cedar trees, and the addition of 150’ of plantings will be adequate for screening.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan, Subdivision, 711 Bishop Road, Phillip (SUB03-09) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the final plan proposal submitted by Steven and Carrie Phillip for a subdivision at 711 Bishop Road subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be modified to address any unresolved concerns raised by the Town’s consulting engineer per the letter dated October 8, 2004, Town staff, and the Town’s Fire Chief. 2. Prior to filing a mylar, a road name shall be proposed and approved by the Town. 3. Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office; this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any residence on Lot #3, the applicant shall: 1) stake the location of the driveway in the vicinity of the Lord residence prior to construction; 2) notify the Lords at least 48 hours prior to any blasting; 3) plant screening consisting of approximately 150’ of evergreens along the driveway in the vicinity of the Lord property. 5. In the event blasting is required, the applicant shall notify the Planning and Zoning Office at least 48 hours in advance. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, ERNEST AUCLAIR FAMILY TRUST/API PROPERTIES, INC., 61 POND ROAD (SUB04-08) Claude LaPierre recused himself. Mike Burke with Krebs & Lansing Engineering appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Mike Burke reviewed the adjustments made to the site plan due to the confirmed location of wetlands. The building envelopes are smaller, one has been shifted to the edge of the woods, and the lots have been shifted. On the west, south, and east sides of the property, there is to be a 150’ conservation buffer and an area associated with Lot #1 agricultural land will have an agricultural easement. Kerry O’Brien delineated the wetlands associated with the drainage way running southerly and westerly under Pond Road to Shelburne Pond. Mr. Burke reviewed the types of soil on the site, noting the agricultural soils have been avoided by the development portion of the proposal. The site has a heavily wooded section (evergreen and hardwoods), ledge, and meadow. The amount to be under development is 30 acres out of the 218 acre parcel. Wetlands delineation and soils investigation for waste water disposal have been done. No archaeological investigation has been done on the site. Mr. Burkes showed how the proposed development fits with town maps relative to soils, waste water disposal capacity, natural features, and wetlands. Wild life areas are to the west of the proposed development. According to the town’s Public and Conservation Land Map, conserved land is westerly and northerly of the parcel and not adjacent to the development. The Existing Land Use Map shows the forested area of the parcel, and according to the Historic Resources Map, there do not appear to be any historic resources on the parcel, but there have been archaeological studies done in the corridor in the past. No significant views have been identified on the property or in the development area per the Significant Views Map. The Future Land Use Map indicates continued use of the land in Rural 1 planning. The lot sizes are consistent with Rural 1, continued Mr. Burke, and access is consistent with planning and zoning regulations. There will be a 150’ conservation buffer around the drainage easement and the agricultural easement on Lot #1 to assure the land remains in agricultural use. Locating a bike/pedestrian corridor on the northerly edge of the property is a possibility, said Mr. Burke. Rick Peterson asked if the proposal envisions the open land conveyed to API or retained by the Auclair family. Mike Burke stated the entire parcel will be conveyed to API. Chairman Peterson asked about the area of Lot #1 outside the agricultural easement area being greater than five acres (does not have to be that large to meet zoning standards), and if the land could be worked as part of Lot #1 or the remaining 187 acres. Mike Burke confirmed the acreage could be reduced, but numerous requested have been received by people interested in working smaller parcels of land. Dean Pierce interjected if the proposal is not reviewed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD), the land not covered by an easement must be at least five acres (a PRD allows less than five acres). Rick Peterson asked about the plan for the remaining acreage. Mike Burke stated agricultural use is being explored (possibly organic farming). There is already a forest management plan for the forested portion of the parcel. The property presently is fallow. Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission is concerned with the agricultural land area being developed piecemeal over time, and would like to see an overall plan for the entire parcel (i.e. master plan). Mike Anderson, API, said he has been exploring ways to keep the land functioning as agricultural/forest to try to keep the land self-sustaining for as long as possible. Rick Peterson mentioned compatibility with neighboring uses and landowners, such as the operating dairy farm to the north. Mike Burke said a Right to Farm clause could be included in the deed on the relative portion of the property, and the siting of the building envelopes is such that the houses will be well screened. Location of the access to the land is not too flexible due to wetlands constraints. The field will be further disrupted if the access is moved farther into the field. Chairman Peterson pointed out Right to Farm language is helpful, but does not stop lawsuits, and the parties involved could pay significant expenses in order to win the case. A covenant or document to the benefit of the nonparty landowner (i.e. the existing farm to the north) needs to be crafted, and the right to recover the legal costs of a lawsuit (loser pays) needs to be included. There is real potential for conflict with the farm and the large existing manure pit, stated Mr. Peterson. Mike Burke agreed these measures can be explored. Hilda White stated the loser pays clause is important because a farmer may win the lawsuit, but go bankrupt doing so. Shelburne wants to preserve the farms that are left in town, stressed Ms. White. Tucker Holland reiterated the need for the Planning Commission to see a plan for the entire property in order to approach the development in a sensitive manner and balance the interest of the entire community. Fred Schmidt asked about the approximately 20 acres east of the proposed driveway. Mike Burke stated the area has not been used in a long time. The soil is wet. The Guillemette family pointed out the soil is similar to what is farmed on their property. Rick Peterson clarified the soil has been identified as statewide soil which has been established as reasonable crop land. Fred Schmidt commented that Pond Road floods where the creek crosses under the road. Mr. Burke stated the development will diminish the run off due to site improvements. There will be a longer flow path and more pervious, vegetated soil than is there presently.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/14/04. Dean Pierce noted receipt of a letter from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee regarding the property. There is also the issue of the VAST trail on the property. The town could request an easement to benefit the trail connection. Future site plans should depict the location of the VAST trail on the property. Rick Peterson asked if the property owner would be amenable to a floating easement for the snowmobile trail. Mike Anderson said he spoke with the VAST trail coordinator, and it will be fine to grant the easement request this year and review the request on a year-by-year basis. Andrea VanHoven, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, outlined concern about maintaining the viability of the Guillemette farm, what happens with the remainder of the property to be developed, and impact on Shelburne Pond. The Natural Resources Committee suggests looking at sensitive areas in the wetlands and drainage sites to help preserve and improve water quality. A conservation buffer is good (the buffer should be an actual easement), but the size should be increased by the wetlands and the drainage area. Also, the conservation property should be conveyed to a third party, such as UVM which manages the land around Shelburne Pond presently. The Nature Conservancy does the same. These land stewards periodically check on the property. Another suggestion is to decrease the lot sizes to provide for wider buffers, stated Ms. VanHoven. Mike Burke stated there may be ways to tighten up the footprint of the development. Mr. Burke assured the concerns about third party ownership and agricultural parties having the right to continue with reasonable practices have been heard. Hilda White urged considering the idea of clustering houses around the cul-de-sac and locating the first house farther from the road to help with potential noise problems. Mr. Burke stated there are areas that are buildable and other that are not on the property. The building areas must be designated in the areas that can be used. Rick Peterson interjected five houses may be too many for the area, and the access road intersecting Pond Road directly across from the Guillemette barn is a concern.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Jerry Guillemette, owner of the existing farm at the corner of Pond Road, stated the property owner (Auclair) knows what needs to be done to protect neighbors, citing the recent development on Van Sicklin Road and what was done to reduce the impact on the Auclair property which abuts the development. Mr. Guillemette gave a family history of the farmstead (seven children born in Shelburne first living on their farm on Marsett Road then on Bishop Road and finally on Pond Road in 1948). A new house was built in 1958 using lumber from the land. In 1968, the family built the barn which burned down in 1980. The family had to milk their herd outside for a very long time due to a misunderstanding over property boundaries which delayed building another barn. Mr. Guillemette stressed the family works long and hard on the farm that was passed down through the generations, from father to son, and the family wants to continue farming if possible in light of the challenges (low milk prices, high insurance and fuel costs, and development pressures). The property will change when driveways are cut and trees are felled, stated Mr. Guillemette. Roger Guillemette, Guillemette Farm, expressed concern for septic waste from the proposed houses seeping into Shelburne Pond. Mike Burke explained adequate soils have been identified for waste water disposal systems, and the required setbacks will be exceeded by the development. It is anticipated there will be pre-treatment of effluent to yield a 90% decrease in BOD and suspended solids before flowing into the system. Testing must be done to show the soil can absorb and treat the effluent. Roger Guillemette pointed out four of the seven Guillemette children and their mother all have an interest in continuing the farm operation. Gail Albert, Shelburne resident, agreed with the Right to Farm clause being included in the deed as well as the right to farm during the construction process itself, noting blasting, construction noise, machines, all can impact farm operations. There was a question about 184 acres being open. Mike Burke stated town tax maps were referenced. A survey was not done at this stage of review. Rick Peterson stated the acreage is a best estimate at this point. The applicant will have to firm up acreage amounts if the Planning Commission is dealing with the entire property in terms of development plans. David Palmer, Shelburne resident, recalled the land was surveyed 15 years ago by Mr. Auclair (the existence of conflicting surveys caused delay in the replacement of the Guillemette barn). Mr. Palmer expressed concern about having a right-of-way to his property which is surrounded on three sides by the Auclair parcel under discussion. Pat LeClaire, VAST, showed the location of the VAST trail through the Auclair property, noting there are 33 miles of VAST trail between Shelburne and Charlotte and this is the only connection on the western side of Vermont that goes from southern Vermont to northern Vermont. Bernie Guillemette, Guillemette Farm, asked if alternative sites and access have been explored, such as Frogs End Road which Mr. Auclair has used for logging. Mike Burke said he was not aware the property had any right to use an access from Frogs End Road. The Guillemette family questioned having the access road in front of their barn. Cecile Guillemette stated people who buy the houses, especially out-of-staters, will not know about a working dairy farm and the associated noise, dust, and smells. Bernie Guillemette mentioned it may be necessary to milk the cows three times a day which means the pump will run in the middle of the night, and if the 60 cows boarded off-site are brought to the farm, another barn will have to be built. Mr. Guillemette urged the Planning Commission to look beyond tomorrow, noting the family farm did not anticipate having potential problems with neighbors who just moved to the area (i.e. residents of the proposed development). There were no further comments. DELIBERATION/DECISION Sketch Plan Continuation, Six Lot Subdivision, 61 Pond Road, Auclair (SUB04-08) Fred Schmidt made a motion to continue the sketch plan review until 12/9/04, but the motion failed due to lack of support (no second). MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the Auclair sketch plan for a six lot subdivision on Pond Road as submitted. VOTING: 0 ayes, 5 nays (Peterson, Schmidt, White, Kraushaar, Holland); motion did not carry. Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission.

5. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Site Visit to Arrowhead Properties The Planning Commission scheduled a site visit to Arrowhead Properties on Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 9 a.m. The Natural Resources Committee is invited to attend. Town Plan Update Meeting with Mike Munson The meeting with Mike Munson was scheduled on 10/21/04 at 7 p.m. Graduate Project Fred Schmidt reported on a student’s graduate project related to planning monthly nature activities in Shelburne, such as going on a hawk watch. The student would like a Planning Commissioner to assist. Fishman Wind Turbine Dean Pierce reported letters regarding the public hearing on the Fishman wind turbine request have been mailed.

6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT: Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt. (Rick Peterson was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Thomas Tompkins.

AGENDA:

1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (10/14/04)

2. Design Review Application, Clayton Investments/Kevin Clayton (Village Wine and Coffee, LLC), 5288 Shelburne Road (DR04-21)

3. Design Review Application, Enoch Tompkins/Thomas Tompkins, 959 & 969 Falls Road (DR04-22)

4. Other Business, Correspondence

5. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES In the absence of Chairman Rick Peterson, Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2004 MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the 10/14/04 minutes with the following corrections: Page 5, Auclair Application, Applicant Comments, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence – change “requested” to “requests”; Page 7, Auclair Application, Public Comments, 1st paragraph – change “Jerry” to “Bernie”. VOTING: unanimous (4-0) [Claude LaPierre and Fred Schmidt not present for vote]; motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, CLAYTON INVESTMENTS/KEVIN CLAYTON (VILLAGE WINE AND COFFEE, LLC), 5288 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR04-21) No one appeared on behalf of the application. The Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, dated 10/28/04, and decided the one-over-one style windows should be installed as suggested by the Design Review Committee. There were no comments from the public on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Exterior Improvements (porches and windows), 5288 Shelburne Road, Kevin Clayton (DR04-21) MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the design review application submitted by Kevin G. Clayton/Clayton investments for improvements to two existing porches as well as the addition of three windows on the southern elevation of the building at 5288 Shelburne Road consistent with the plans submitted and with the incorporation of the following elements into the design: 1. Windows shall be spaced to provide approximately four inches of exterior vertical trim and interior casing. 2. Window sashes shall be clad with wood trim. 3. The color of the sashes and trim selected shall match colors on the front of the building. 4. “One-over-one” style windows shall be used in place of “two-over-two” style windows. 5. In the event “guardrails” on the porch are painted, the applicant may utilize wood other than Mahogany. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

3. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, ENOCH TOMPKINS/THOMAS TOMPKINS, 959 & 969 FALLS ROAD (DR04-22) Thomas Tompkins appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Tompkins explained the decking under the asphalt sheet roofing on the shed needs to be replaced. There is a hole in the roof. Water leaking in has affected the rafter. Wood to be replaced will be with the same type of material there now. If there is more extensive rot, then an overlay using CDX or OSD material will be done. An extensive survey of the house which was built in 1855 has not yet been done. Rough cut one inch lumber was used on the house when it was built. Today’s standard is ¾”. There is some original material stockpiled which will be used. There is some rot around the chimney (the decking shows some rot) and this will be brought to the attention of the roofers. There are two layers of roofing on the house. The shingles are splitting. It is not known what will be found when the old roof is removed (with regard to rot). There are skylights and a bathroom fan vented through the roof to contend with when replacing the roof. Every effort will be made to repair the roof on the house and shed as close to what is there, assured Mr. Tompkins.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/28/04.

PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Roof Repairs, 959 & 969 Falls Road, Thomas Tompkins (DR04-22) MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant design plan approval to Thomas Tompkins for the proposal to complete roof repairs on the house and associated porch and shed at 969 Falls Road and a shed at 959 Falls Road in accordance with materials presented provided the exterior materials used match or are substantially similar to existing material. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Town Plan Update Meeting with Mike Munson Materials from Mike Munson will be sent to the Planning Commission before the 11/18/04 work session. The work session in December is 12/16/04. Dean Pierce will confirm if the Selectboard will attend the 11/18/04 meeting. Fishman Wind Turbine The Public Service Board will do a site visit to the Fishman property on 11/18/04. There will be a presentation on small wind turbines at 5 p.m. on 11/11/04 after which the regular Planning Commission meeting will begin at 7 p.m. There was brief discussion of the impact on the viewscape of wind turbines of 120’ in height plus an 11’ propeller versus a 30’ high wind turbine. It was mentioned in the last century, wind turbines were used on many farms to pump water so they were a more common part of the landscape. It was noted the Town of Shelburne holds people to high standards with regard to visual impacts, especially involving the lake shore. The decision on the wind turbine on the Fishman property is being made by the Public Service Board because the electricity generated will feed into the electric grid (the wind turbine is considered an input power producer). The town should be involved because the structure really is a private structure since what is provided publicly is limited. Hilda White asked if more power poles and lines will be needed. Dean Pierce will investigate this matter. Meeting Schedule November 11, 2004, 7 p.m. December 9, 2004, 7:30 p.m. South Village, South Burlington Dean Pierce will contact the South Burlington planner regarding the proposed 300 home development on Spear Street (South Village). Shelburne is concerned about storm water run off (into the impaired Monroe Brook waterway) and traffic. Communityviz Software Reg Gignoux reported on the opportunity for the town to receive Communityviz software from the Orton Family Foundation free of charge. There will be some hardware costs. The software will be useful when looking at different development scenarios and doing a build out analysis. The software provides a visual tool to better understand the impact of housing over the next 10 years, for example.

5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.