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

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Dean Pierce, Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Charles Bigelow, Steven Selin, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Hilda White, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Peter Richardson, Susan McLellan, M. Johnson, Sue Davis (Shelburne News), and others.

 

PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT ON A SECTION OF FALLS ROAD FROM 35 MPH TO 30 MPH

Chairman Dudley opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chuck Bigelow, resident, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment to the traffic ordinance. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m.

 

MOTION by Ms. Levine, seconded by Mr. Neme, to adopt the proposed Amendment of the Traffic Ordinance to change the speed limit on a section of Falls Road from 35 mph to 30 mph from Church Street to the Route 7 intersection. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

The Board signed the ordinance document.

 

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

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

Chuck Bigelow reviewed and submitted a letter to the Selectboard regarding speed and volume data collected during a recent traffic study and police studies done two years ago.  Mr. Bigelow suggested traffic calming measures, police presence in strategic spots on a consistent basis for a short period of time during peak traffic hours, and further police traffic data collection after completion of the Route 7 reconstruction project.  Mr. Bohne reported advisory signs will be posted on the Falls Road Bridge.

 

Dean Pierce, Town Planner, reviewed proposed zoning bylaw changes in response to recent applications to include:

Mr. Neme asked if bed and breakfast agriculture/tours are part of the definitions for integrated agriculture. Mr. Pierce explained the secondary activities of integrated agriculture. Bed and breakfast agri-tourism may not have been discussed by the Planning Commission. Agri-tourism/hosting could be added. The proposed definitions clarify primary activities and secondary activities as indicated by the revenue generated by the activity as a percentage of the overall revenue of the agricultural operation. The proposed zoning changes have been reviewed by the Town Attorney.  There was lengthy discussion of minimal activity/revenue thresholds for determining criteria (a farm that produces milk must have dairy cows on site; with integrated farming, the secondary activity must be “incidental” but directly related to the primary activity.). The Selectboard had concern about the proposed integrated agriculture activity being a gray area subject to legal challenges. Mr. Pierce stated this was discussed by the Planning Commission, but percentages (of revenue) were not set.

 

Regarding changes to setbacks, Mr. Pierce stated the proposed language gives provisions for granting a variance. Exemptions are allowed “provided that a design engineer certifies an encroachment has no other reasonable alternative available.” Language also acknowledges federal law and does not recognize a minimum setback. Mr. Bohne asked if the Town Attorney was concerned a lawsuit based on federal law was possible. Mr. Pierce replied the proposed language clarifies the issues. The Zoning Administrator is a key component. If an elevator is needed (to comply with ADA requirements), then an exemption can be granted for an addition in relationship to “what was necessary to enclose the conveyance”.

 

Regarding a Planned Unit Development redevelopment of the village core area, Mr. Pierce said that the proposed changes would provide flexibility with limited construction. Currently zoning is “one lot - one use. PUD redevelopment would apply to existing development. There are 60 parcels affected. The existing building footprint can not be exceeded by more than 25% (of the footprint). There are also other criteria to be met.  Mr. Pierce reviewed minimum dimension requirements for setbacks, a proposal to move the Village Overlay district boundary to encircle the Dyer property, accessory structures, building coverage, and lot coverage (the Planning Commission set an 80% cap). PUD redevelopment must comply with site plan review requirements.  There was discussion of parking in the Village Core. An accounting of parking in the village will be done to prevent developers from repeatedly “selling” public parking spaces. It was suggested the word “adequate” be inserted before “parking is available”. The Board had concern about the proposed paragraph that added language related to non-compliance and non-conformance. Comments on the new language (paragraph) are needed prior to the next meeting on 06/30/05 or a second public hearing can be scheduled.

 

Gwen Webster, resident and Zoning Board of Adjustment member, noted there are pending applications before the Zoning Board on 07/04/05. The Zoning Board cannot act on the applications if the new regulations are adopted on 06/30/05. The changes will not take effect until 15 days following the approval. Mr. Pierce suggested the Zoning Board can hear the applications and condition approvals on the amended bylaws being approved and in effect.

 

In response to a question regarding non-complying and non-conforming language, Mr. Pierce stated Paragraph E is optional and will make a parcel “complying”.  There was lengthy discussion of the six points as outlined in Paragraph E. Mr. Dudley said he would like further information on the last three points. Further concerns related to the proposed agricultural changes. Mr. Neme questioned why there were no minimal criteria related to “incidental”. It was suggested there be a definition of “principal” farming activity to address the Board’s concerns.

 

Peter Richardson, Shelburne Inn representative, stated a delay in adopting the zoning amendment is a “day lost” for the developer. Time is money. The Town Attorney agreed the proposed language (Paragraph E) is not a substantive change. The Selectboard can put the language forth for consideration with the option to pull it at the 06/30/05 hearing.  

 

Mr. Frankenburg suggested unless there are issues, the Board can adopt the proposed FY06 Capital Budget and Program at a future meeting. Comments/questions should be emailed to staff.

 

Mr. Frankenburg highlighted items in the proposed FY05/06 Sewer budget. There is a 6.5% increase in the sewer rate (range of $21 to $34 increase). Weather is taken into account. There is a transfer of $10,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund for capital improvement projects. Less consumption is driving the increase.  Mr. Frankenburg answered questions about the collection system improvements (system upgrades are prioritized) and the variable frequency drives (no impact on electrical usage).  Mr. Frankenburg noted that Plant #1 budget decreased by $1,600.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to approve the proposed FY05/06 Sewer budget as presented.  VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Mr. Bohne reported three-year allocations were re-calculated to correct an error.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve the sewer allocation of 210 gpd for Randy, Arlene and Jamie Fisher, 38 Webster Lane, from Plant #2 as presented. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve the sewer allocation of 210 gpd for James and Barbara Bergman, 987 Bay Road, from Plant #2 as presented with the stipulation the owner will maintain the pump station. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

Mr. Bohne reported Town staff has met with the engineers and the State. The project is ready to go out to bid. The Town received a federal STAGG grant. The State has committed $150,000. The Town has been permitted to use fill from the Route 7 reconstruction project (this will reduce costs by $55,000). There is a projected $40,000 shortfall. The Town is looking for an offset fund to fill the projected shortfall. Shelburne is currently carrying engineering expenses, which is reimbursable. A phased project could be developed if necessary.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to proceed to go to bid on the Hullcrest Park as presented. VOTE: 3 ayes, 1 nay (Ms. Levine); motion carried.

 

Mr. Bohne said an update will be sent to the Hullcrest residents.

 

Mr. Bohne explained the Davis Park tennis court improvements will be included on a multi-purpose bond. A “bridge” loan is required to fill the six-week gap until funds become available from the bond sale.

 

MOTION by Ms. Levine, seconded by Mr. Neme, to approve a $120,000 note with the Chittenden Bank at 2.75 percent interest for financing the tennis court project at Davis Park as presented. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Mr. Bohne reviewed the one time loan amendment (increase to $99,250) to reimburse the Town for the project involving installation of a new sewer line under the railroad tracks. The project started in December. The contractor is finishing the landscaping.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to approve the $99,250 increase to the Revolving Loan Fund for the railroad sewer line crossing as presented. VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Mr. Frankenburg reported the total actual volume billed is 150 million gallons this year versus 176 million gallons projected in FY06. Capital improvements to a water line on Cynosure Drive will be funded. There is no increase in the wholesale water rate. Staffing is three FTE employees. The Sewer Dept. is paying the Water Department to read meters. Cell tower fees/rentals are level funded. Debt Service is increasing by $12,000. Due to various factors there are lower water sales which translate to less revenue and impact the budget. There is a $0.26 per 1,000 gallons rate increase (7.1% increase).  Mr. Bohne noted water quality at the Wake Robin tank is an on-going issue. The Cynosure Drive system will result in a small increase in current daily use of  20,000 gpd. There is an effort to get fresh water turnover in the tank to insure high water quality.

Mr. Bohne said the amount requested was reduced by $100,000. The application was submitted.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to reduce the bond application to $1.909 million. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

Tabled until the next Selectboard meeting.

 

Mr. Bohne reported on the following items:

 

Mr. Neme announced a ribbon cutting ceremony at the LaPlatte Nature Park on 6/19/05, and that Paula Cope was awarded the Small Business Award.

 

Mr. Boyd said he will be absent 06/22/05 and 07/06/05 to 07/21/05.

 

MOTION by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Neme, to enter Executive Session to discuss litigation where public knowledge would place the Town at a disadvantage, and to invite the Town Manager to attend. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

The Board entered Executive Session at 10:00 p.m.

 

Accepted,

 

Jim Dudley, Selectboard Chairperson

TOWN OF SHELBURNE

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Jim Dudley, Chairperson; Chris Neme, Vice Chairperson; Lisa Levine (via telephone); Chris Boyd and Jim Talley.

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager

Mr. Dudley called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M.

 

There were no changes to the Agenda.

 

There was no citizen participation.

 

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Neme, to go into Executive Session for the

purpose of discussing litigation. VOTE:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

Executive Session ended at 5:54 P.M.

 

Mr. Dudley explained the process that the Board used and the elements that went into the

decisions.  He said that the Board had met on two occasions with the Zoning Board in an

effort to understand the issues that concerned the ZBA and to take those into consideration

as the Selectboard deliberated on the issues before them.

 

Mr. Neme expressed agreement with the statements of the Chair.  He stated that due to an

earlier Selectboard decision to consider LaPlatte Nature Park as a site for playing fields,

he wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to construct fields on the Blodgett property.

Mr. Dudley and Mr. Stitzel stated that all documents referred to at this meeting needed to be

finalized and executed prior to being made public.

 

Mr. Dudley reviewed the additions to the contract that increased the contract price from

$1,150,000 to $1,314,500.  The reason for the contract price increase included items not part

of the current contract.

 

Mr. Dudley reviewed the additional requirements agreed to by Fieldhouse LLC that include

additional landscaping and screening attached to the east and west elevations of the girders.

 

Mr. Waltien, Ms. Webster and Mr. Reid all expressed opinions that the design additions

agreed to were inadequate and the issues should have been resolved by other Boards and

Commissions.

 

Mr. Koerner asked how fines were established.  Mr. Dudley stated that a potential existed for

up to $14,000 in fines.  The Board felt that $7,000 was a fair settlement under the

circumstances.  Mr. Neme agreed with Mr. Dudley’s assessment and said that the amount of

fines was not attributable to either enforcement action, but was negotiated in aggregate.

 

Mr. Koerner asked if the settlement included State permits. 

 

Mr. Stitzel responded that there is no relationship between the Town settlement and any State

permits.

 

 

Mr. Webster stated that in his opinion this was the low point in Town government.  Mr.

Waltien and Mr. Koerner asked for an explanation of where the process for this project went

wrong.  Mr. Waltien said that he felt that the Town received bad advice from the Town

Attorney and Town Manager.  Mr. Waltien further stated that the overwhelming perception

of the ZBA was that enforcement on this project was sorely lacking.

 

Mr. Neme acknowledged that self-reflection may have a benefit.  On hindsight he may have

read the contract more closely. He said that the removal of temporary girders was

accomplished fairly quickly, and that the Selectboard tried to balance all issues.

 

Mr. Reid stated that he hoped the Town would make sure that the project went well

 

8.         ADJOURN

Minutes respectfully submitted by Paul W. Bohne III, Town Manager.

 

 

Accepted,

 

 

 

James Dudley, Selectboard Chair

 

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

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Peter Richardson, Larry Williams, Norm Silcox, Rick Peterson, Stuart Bennett, Tom Little, Thea Pleatt

 

 

Jim Dudley opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and briefly reviewed past discussions of the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaws. Dean Pierce, Town Planner, reviewed the proposed Redevelopment PUD in the Village Overlay Zone amendment that includes scope, permissible uses, density increases, and waiver of parking requirements.

 

Norm Silcox, resident, asked for clarification about the proposed 80% lot coverage. Mr. Pierce explained the proposed regulations have two requirements: total lot coverage of 80 percent (all impervious surfaces) and building coverage (no limit). The Planning Commission has the discretion to allow more than 80 percent coverage. Currently coverage can be 100 percent without the Village PUD. Gwen Webster, resident and Zoning Board of Adjustment member, noted the Planning Commission will address the 100 percent issue when the Town Plan is reviewed.  Mr. Silcox asked if parking issues are decided by the Zoning Board. Mr. Pierce clarified that there is an interlock between Zoning Board approval and Planning Commission review. An applicant must receive Zoning Board approval first and then approval from the Planning Commission. Town zoning regulations have allowed the Planning Commission to waive parking requirements by as much as 30 percent

 

Gail Albert, resident, asked if any redevelopment could be proposed for 100 percent coverage if there is no impervious surface. Mr. Pierce replied that if a project has no impervious surface and no building, then the PUD would not apply. The zoning hinges on existing buildings. The Planning Commission also reviews site plans.

 

David Webster, resident, expressed concern that combined changes could result in higher commercial uses, and also, that a building could expand upward to three stories which could impact abutting properties if the building is 7.5 feet from the property line. Building height needs to be addressed. A 7.5 foot setback is not an adequate setback. Mr. Webster also asked how the Zoning Board can address a “standout” application that does not “fit” the surrounding character of the village versus a complementary design. Mr. Pierce explained there is control through conditional use and PUD review by the Zoning Board and Planning Commission respectively. Also, the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee reviews applications in the village district.  Issues such as “character of the neighborhood” and height (limit of 35’) are covered. Mr. Webster suggested a stronger mechanism to prevent three-story structures. Mr. Pierce said the Planning Commission discussed building height and there was no support for further limits. Mr. Neme suggested adding a provision to impose a ratio of building height to setbacks.  Rick Peterson, Planning Commission, said if there is a concern, it can be brought to the Planning Commission and Zoning Board’s attention. The assumption is that conditional use review is sufficient protection. Gwen Webster noted Section 4.h - maximum building height says an addition to an existing structure can be closer to line and can be 35 feet in height. Mr. Pierce said there are ordinances with ‘step-back’ provisions where as building height increases, the step-back provision is invoked. If there is a situation where a building will block an adjacent neighbor, then the Planning Commission and Zoning Board can place conditions on the application. Language can be crafted to address increasing building heights that cast shadows to be set back from the lot line. Mr. Peterson stated said the intent of the proposed amendment was flexibility. Conditional use criteria should handle concerns.  There was discussion of adding language for a “step” formula.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to continue the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations relative to the establishment of a Redevelopment PUD in the Village Overlay Zone to 7/26/05 unless Planning Commission input is receive within a time frame that will allow for a public hearing on 7/12/05.  VOTE: 3 ayes [Mr. Talley and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

 

 Mr. Pierce reviewed the state statutes related to agricultural exemptions of accepted agricultural practices, and the proposed definitions for integrated agricultural primary and secondary activities in the Rural 1 and Rural 2 zones.

 

Ms. Levine asked what the penalty would be if the secondary activity exceeded the primary agricultural use. Mr. Pierce explained the business would be in violation of the approval and enforcement action would be taken beginning with a Notice of Violation which can be appealed to the Zoning Board and then the Environmental Court. The business is subject to fines per state statute.

 

Mr. Neme expressed concern the definition could preclude agricultural from doing minor activities (greater than 50 percent is covered by state statute, but less than 50 percent is now a concern). Mr. Peterson said the Planning Commission does not want secondary activities to eclipse primary uses. Mr. Pierce stated for planning purposes, specific definitions are needed.

 

Mr. Silcox expressed concern regarding integrated agriculture as a conditional use. Agriculture is geographical in nature. The Nature Conservancy paid to keep open space on the east side of Route 7, and now the west side is proposed for integrated agriculture. There is concern about the number of curb cuts on Route 7 (should be kept to a minimum). The town is setting a precedent in that if an application is unsuccessful, then the applicant can request a re-write of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Silcox concurred with the provision of 2/3 gross revenue for a primary use and 1/3 revenue for a secondary use, acknowledging this would involve the Zoning Board in auditing the use from a financial perspective. Mr. Peterson mentioned discussions by the Planning Commission about annual audits, and agreement that a reasonable balance of the interest by the landowner and the town is necessary. Mr. Neme asked if the applicant could be required to submit an annual certification (of compliance) versus producing documentation on demand. Mr. Pierce and Mr. Peterson said the discussion boiled down to the business having to be in compliance and the Zoning Administrator being able to request documentation to ensure the business is in compliance.  Mr. Dudley read the conditional use criteria for secondary activities which state the Town must monitor the operation. Mr. Silcox expressed concern about “spot” zoning (zoning being changed for certain applications) and potential for more requests in the future. Mr. Peterson agreed spot zoning should be avoided and the town should not “zone” projects into existence, however, there is a process for deficiencies to be brought forward to the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board for consideration. The areas of town under consideration are in the Rural 1 and Rural 2 zones. The application under discussion is an enhancement of agricultural viability in Shelburne. It is hoped the amendment is written to avoid future issues, and there are appropriate checks and balances in place with the Planning Commission, Zoning Board, and Selectboard.  Mr. Bohne pointed out that the state and the town must approve access points on Route 7.  Mr. Dudley noted curb cuts, open space, and views are not part of the proposed amendment to the ordinance.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to adopt the proposed Addition of Integrated Agriculture as a Conditional Use in the R-1 and R-2 Zones as presented. VOTE: 3 ayes [Mr. Talley and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

 

Mr. Pierce reviewed setback exceptions related to encroachment requirements for handicap conveyances. The Planning Commission discussed zero setbacks and preferred maintaining 5’ and 15’ minimums.  There was discussion of returning the building to the original setback when the handicap ramp/conveyance is no longer needed. It was noted the proposed amendment is solely to meet the needs of the handicapped and ensure the town complies with federal ADA standards.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to adopt the proposed Modification of Setbacks to Accommodate Building Access to Persons with Disabilities, and that a structure providing conveyance and/or containing equipment constructed solely to provide access for the disabled to a residence or other building existing as of the effective date of this subsection may observe setbacks less than those specified in (b) and (c) of the amendment provided:

·        A licensed design professional certifies that no reasonable alternative is available and the encroachment is the minimum necessary to provide such access, and

·        The applicant receives conditional use approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment under Section 1610.

DISCUSSION: It was noted no comments had been received regarding setbacks of 5’ to zero feet.  Regarding removing the conveyance when no longer needed, it was noted the conveyance may be a selling point of the property in light of an aging population. Currently, only ramps are allowed. A licensed design professional must certify there is no reasonable alternative available and only the minimum encroachment will be approved.

   CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Dudley. Discussion ceased.

 

Mr. Dudley called the regular meeting to order at 8:41 p.m.

 

Agenda Item #9 - Consider Setting the Property Tax Rates for FY2006 will precede Agenda Item #4 – Stormwater Grant.

None.

Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the proposed FY2005-2006 tax rate process (for the municipal tax rate). Appeals before the Board of Civil Authority are pending. The Town tax rate is based on the budget and articles approved at the March Town Meeting. Mr. Frankenburg reported there is a 2.9% increase in the Town tax rate. The education tax rates of $1.5168 for homestead property and $1.484 for non-residential property were verified with the School District business office.

 

Mr. Neme asked if the EPA construction requirements related to salt/sand sheds have been clarified. Mr. Bohne stated more research is needed, and because the Town shed is on McCabe’s Brook, there are environmental concerns. Requirements for Shelburne will be stiffer and will not change the need for constructing the sand/salt storage facility.

 

Ms. Levine asked how much of the school tax rate increase includes the Shelburne portion of the CVU expansion. Mr. Frankenburg will verify the numbers with the School Board for the next Selectboard meeting. Frankenburg noted the total tax rate increase of   12.8% increase was close to the estimated tax rate of 13% presented at the Town Meeting.

 

 

Mr. Frankenburg gave an overview of the proposed Capital Budget and Program. Ms. Levine asked if the CVU expansion is included. Mr. Frankenburg explained the project is included at a cost of $18.4 million in the Capital Budget & Program. A consultant is drafting a CVU impact fee for consideration.  Ms. Levine asked about the Rescue Squad exhaust system that is included in the Capital Program. Mr. Frankenburg replied the current system in place is sufficient at this time. The department discussed an enhancement to the system which is a line item in FY06/07. The Rescue Squad is exploring new technology which, if feasible would be included in their FY 06-07 operating budget request. Mr. Dudley suggested the item(s) should be left in the Capital Budget as a future plan. Trimming the Capital Budget is not necessarily in the town’s best interest in planning for impact fees.

 

Mr. Talley entered the Selectboard meeting at this point

 

Mr. Neme commented on items in the Capital Budget, such as replacement cycles for vehicles, which are not a binding commitment, and suggested considering fuel efficiencies. Mr. Neme expressed concern about the proposal to chip seal Pond Road, noting the townspeople overwhelmingly voted against this.

 

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to delete the Pond Road Chip Seal item from the proposed  Capital Budget & Program.

 

DISCUSSION: Mr. Frankenburg explained the Highway Department Supervisor asked staff to reconsider the chip seal item since Pond Road requires frequent grading and maintenance for dust control, potholes, and such. The item is in the FY07/08 budget, but not funded or committed. Mr. Bohne said the chip seal project translates to nearly a $5,000 savings in road maintenance. Also, more houses are being built on Pond Road and Pond Road is used as a through road from Route 116.

     CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Dudley. Discussion ceased.

VOTE: 4 ayes [Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

Ms. Levine left the meeting at this time

MOTION Mr. Neme, seconded by Ms. Levine, to approve the First Reading of the Capital Budget and Program as amended and to schedule at public hearing on July 12, 2005.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Talley mentioned he may have a potential conflict of interest as a member of the Fire Department. The Board felt there was no conflict.

VOTE: 4 ayes [Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Talley, to grant the sewer allocation request by Manny Gurowski (Lake Champlain Transportation), 2997 Shelburne Road, for an additional 210 gpd to the existing 511 gpd allocation for the former Bond Auto building. VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Neme, to re-appoint Jim Dudley as the CCMPO Representative, and the Town Manager as the Alternate. VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Talley, to appoint the Town Manager as the CSWD Alternate for a two-year term.  VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

Mr. Bohne explained Board approval is needed to make a formal application for the $150,000 state grant from SIRF.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Talley, to authorize the Town Manager to apply for a $150,000 state grant from the Stormwater Impaired Remediation Fund as presented. VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Neme, to set the Property Tax Interest Rate at zero percent for the first 30 days and 1.5 percent per month thereafter.

DISCUSSION: Staff noted the preprinted forms state “1.5% or a portion thereof”.  Mr. Talley suggested enclosing an explanation with the delinquent notices. Mr. Bohne pointed out by charter the town must set the rate prior to commencement of the new fiscal year (July 1^st).

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Mr. Neme to condition the change of interest rate on the ability of the accounting software to accommodate the change in rates as motioned.  Mr. Dudley stated if the software can not be modified to handle the change this quarter, then the change could be implemented in the next quarter. Peter Frankenburg assured staff will try to accommodate the change.

VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

Approval of the minutes was tabled until the next meeting of the Board.

 

The Board read cards of thanks received by various social service agencies the Town contributes to.

 

-Mr. Dudley asked for an update on Shelburnewood, but there was no news to report.

 

-Mr. Neme announced the Ice Cream Social on July 4^th at 11:00 am.

 

-Mr. Dudley asked for an update on the Village Plan. Mr. Bohne reported an RFP has been sent out seeking a consultant to carry the project forward.

 

-Mr. Neme reported that he attended a work session on the Town Plan update. A draft should be done by the end of July. The Selectboard will have the document to review by October/November.

 

-Mr. Dudley suggested one Selectboard meeting and/or one work session in August to discuss the status of the Open Space Plan.

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Neme, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: 3 ayes [Ms. Levine and Mr. Boyd not present for vote]; motion carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.

 

 

Accepted,

 

___________________________

Jim Dudley, Selectboard Chairperson