MEMBERS PRESENT: James Dudley, Chairperson, Chris Neme, Jim Talley, Chris

                                          Boyd. (Lisa Levine was absent.)

ADMINISTRATION:     Paul Bohne, Town Manager

OTHERS PRESENT:     Dorothea Penar

Mr. Dudley called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

 

The recent receipt of the VELCO final design for the Northwest Reliability Project was added as Item number 4.

 

Mr. Bohne provided a brief overview of the document that was received by the Town and the timeline suggested by VELCO and the Town Attorney prior to the final design being filed with the PSB.

 

Mr. Dudley proposed to ask VELCO to give a detailed presentation of the proposed design at a Selectboard meeting on either March 16, 22 or 23 and to ask for two weeks thereafter to negotiate the details of the design prior to filing with the PSB. He further proposed that the Manager be authorized to spend up to $2500.00 in addition to the $2500.00 already committed for a computer analysis of the aesthetic impact of the design.

 

Mr. Dudley proposed that the VELCO Committee find a replacement for Bill Rockford, who has moved, and that the Selectboard consider ratifying their membership on the Committee.

 

None.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted, Paul Bohne, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

Accepted for the Board,

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Chris Neme, Chairperson; Jim Talley, Chris Boyd, Jane McKnight, Robert Roesler.

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dorothea Pennar, Jennifer Cole, Tom Dunn, Peter Lind, Fred Melton, Terry Boyle, Ryan Johnson, Kim Hayden, Dick Reid, Andy Simmons, Krista Zanolle, Kenneth DeForge, Bill White, Robert Furrer, Stephen Jost, David Mitchell, Lisa Espensade, Steve Dates, Elaine Dates, Marilyn Benton, Jim Benton, Alec Webb, Reg Gignoux, Jane Benton, Cathy Phillips, Paul Kaza, Colleen Haag, Kevin O’Brien, Joyce Errecart, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), Ashley Mathews (Burlington Free Press), and others.

 

[NOTE: The minutes reflect the published order of the agenda though items were discussed in different order at the meeting. Comments made during the VELCO discussion are grouped by individual.]

 

Paul Bohne, Shelburne Town Manager, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and asked for nominations for Selectboard Chair and Vice Chair positions.

 

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to nominate and elect Chris Neme as Chairman of the Shelburne Selectboard. VOTE: unanimous; motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Neme, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to nominate and elect Jim Talley as Vice Chairman of the Shelburne Selectboard. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

None.

 

4.         PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF VELCO OF THE DETAIL DESIGN OF THE SHELBURNE SECTION OF THE 115kv NORTHWEST RELIABLITY PROJECT

Mr. Bohne introduced Tom Dunn, Peter Lind, Terry Boyle, Ryan Johnson, and Kim Hayden, VELCO representatives. Tom Dunn reviewed the VELCO Northwest Reliability project objectives, preliminary transmission route plans and the revised 115kV line design. VELCO will file the new proposed line route design with the Public Service Board (PSB) on April 3, 2006. VELCO wants to address as many of the town’s concern with the filing as possible. Mr. Dunn explained construction of the transmission line to begin in 2007. The line will be high voltage (115 kV) on single poles. Where the line changes direction there will be a two to three pole structure ranging in height from 47’ to over 70’. A corridor of 100’ is required for the overhead line and a 50’ corridor is required for the underground portion. Structure types include a horizontal conductor structure (“H-frame” pole configuration) and vertical conductor structures (single poles).

 

Mr. Neme asked if there is opportunity to address town comments since the filing date is very close. Mr. Dunn stated VELCO is under time pressure to complete many activities before 2007 (environmental permits and such), but the request will be considered.

 

Robert Furrer, Shelburne Museum, asked if VELCO contracted with Power Engineers. Mr. Dunn confirmed a competitive bid process at the end of 2005 had awarded the contract to Power Engineers. Mr. Furrer asked about staging areas during construction and where heavy equipment will be temporarily stored. Mr. Dunn stated the staging areas have not yet been identified.

 

In response to audience questions, Ryan Johnson explained the following using computer-generated visual drawing sheets showing pole heights and placements:

·        The location of the transmission line in the right-of-way corridor(s) that include certain complications in the 50’ wide underground right-of-way section. VELCO will address these situations.

·        Starting at the north end of the Shelburne/South Burlington line route, the circuit structure will transition to a single circuit structure through Shelburne.

·        The transition structure to the underground cable will not be enclosed and has been consolidated as much as possible. The transition structure will be a steel pole 82’ in height, three feet in diameter at the base and one and a half feet at the top, bolted to a five foot square concrete base with internal cables exiting out.

·        In general the underground right-of-way is 50’ wide. The railroad right-of-way is wider (one side of the track to the other).

·        Double circuit steel poles are 95’ high with nine foot arms on each side of the pole.

·        Landscaping mitigation on the north and south ends of the route has not been worked out yet. The underground transition pole is a tall structure. Plantings will be placed to screen the underground side. The 50’ wide corridor will remain open for service and emergency access.

·        Clearing and access of the undergrounding portion will require a construction road along the entire length of the corridor. VELCO is not ready to answer questions about clearing of the right-of-way, but all trees will need to be removed. VELCO realizes the corridor is in the backyard of many homes and will try to save as many ornamental trees as possible.

 

Dorothea Pennar expressed concern that clearing may include many large trees currently screening houses on the lakeside. Mr. Johnson explained vegetation in the right-of-way presents potential risks. VELCO must remove tree root systems on either side of the right-of-way and whatever else that could potentially disrupt the duct banks. VELCO has a statewide four-year management cycle. It was noted Milton has an underground line under a paved road. The right-of-way being gravel or grass was mentioned. Dorothea Pennar commented a failure in an underground line typically occurs at the location of a splice, and VELCO is proposing three manholes so there may not be the need for an open right-of-way. Mr. Johnson confirmed failures usually do occur at a splice, but access to the corridor with a vehicle is still needed.

 

Kevin O’Brien, resident, questioned the need for a 50’ wide right-of-way and if there is any flexibility with the width. Mr. Dunn explained VELCO needs the ability to access the corridor by truck for line maintenance. Mr. Johnson further explained VELCO needs space for construction of the conduit banks, staging areas for material to be removed during the construction phase, and for repair/maintenance.

 

Andy Simmons, resident, pointed out there are quite a few houses located along the proposed underground route, and with some houses, there is not 50’ available for the VELCO right-of-way. Mr. Johnson said VELCO will deal with situations where space is not available.

 

Mr. Johnson explained vegetation control within the underground right-of-way includes chemical and/or mechanical means. The use of herbicides is at the landowner’s discretion. Ms. Henderson-King asked what will happen if one neighbor denies permission to use herbicides and the next household allows it, and how VELCO will control the impact of chemicals. Kim Hayden, VELCO attorney, explained the PSB ruled VELCO must notify landowners and secure a specific permit for vegetation control. VELCO has an ongoing four year cycle of vegetation control. The Department of Agriculture requires a permit to cover the process. There is a surface water setback of 50’.

 

Mr. Roesler asked the degree of detail VELCO will provide the Town. Ms. Hayden stated VELCO is presenting the proposed dimensions profile and design of the line. Herbicide and environmental issues have been addressed before the PSB. VELCO knows there are questions about the underground right-of-way access road (whether gravel or grass). VELCO must have access to the right-of-way for maintenance and clearing. The PSB has not asked VELCO to identify details.

 

Mr. Neme summarized issues of concern:

·        Staging areas and locations

·        Whether a full 50’ right-of-way is necessary along the entire underground length

·        Screening – what and where with regard to the underground portion

·        Type of road proposed

 

Mr. Neme asked if VELCO plans to answer the questions. Ms. Hayden said information will be provided to the Town Attorney at a later date. VELCO will apply for the stage areas at a later time. Mr. Johnson clarified the PSB does not approve staging areas (these are covered in the permitting process).

 

Mr. Dates asked for clarification of pole heights, specifically Pole #326 (map shows 65’ versus 82’). Mr. Johnson answered the pole at the transition point is 82’ high. Pole heights will be confirmed.  There was question as to why the poles are taller and different from the original proposal. The power line in South Hero has a smaller profile for the same type of line. Mr. Johnson explained the height difference is in the vertical (single pole) construction. The South Hero line is more horizontal. Mr. Dunn added the proposed spans between vertical poles are longer than what the PSB requested and better located (less visible locations, heavily wooded areas).

 

Kenneth Deforge, resident, noted the maps show the underground easement as a 50’ right-of-way, and expressed concern about the proximity to his swimming pool (depending on whether the area is to the right or left of the railroad tracks). The railroad right-of-way is 33’ from the center of the track and on the property line. Fifteen feet is sufficient for vehicle access. Removal of trees will have an impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Johnson explained VELCO needs to dig a five foot deep trench (minimum depth) for the entire length of the underground portion of the line (one and a half miles) so a 50’ wide right-of-way is necessary.

 

A question was asked about the cul-de-sac and the end of the underground line. Mr. Johnson stated the line ends 400’ from the end of the cul-de-sac by the railroad and 800’ from Bay Road. The line is closer to the Nature Conservancy land.

 

Mr. Neme asked for clarification of aesthetic mitigation in the southern area. Mr. Boyle stated if plantings are needed at Spinnaker Drive to screen the line that will be done, for example. Existing vegetation in the vicinity is significant and there is a hill. The site was chosen because it is heavily wooded and no plantings are proposed.

 

Mr. Johnson reviewed the proposed locations of three manholes: one north of Bay Road, one as shown on Sheet #28, and one as shown on Sheet #30 north of Clear Water Road.

 

Mr. Neme asked VELCO to address different situations where the underground right-of-way will impact property owners with less than 50’ clearance. Mr. Johnson said VELCO will walk the line and strategize the least destructive way on landowners as part of the negotiations. VELCO realizes 50’ is not possible in parts of the proposed line route. The easement line on the map is not necessarily centered in the corridor. The center point of the line can be moved depending on the circumstances. Construction plan drawings will be part of the negotiations with landowners. The underground portion is a duct bank with six conduits. Four will be occupied. Minimums are based on thermal output of the conduits. The necessary minimum spacing was explained. Construction and maintenance triggers the 50’ right-of-way.  Residents voiced concern about the location of the line impacting property values, and requested the proposed line location be staked to be clearly visible. It was noted Green Mountain Power’s line is five feet from the railroad track and there is overlap of the VELCO and railroad right-of-way.

 

Mr. Neme again asked if town will be given time to respond before VELCO files their plan on April 3, 2006 and if more detail will be included in the submitted plan.  Mr. Dunn confirmed could include more information in the filing if that is necessary.  Mr. Johnson stated the easement for the underground line is not nailed down, though the intended location of line is shown on the map. Ms. Hayden stressed VELCO has been working with landowners in conjunction with preparing the filing. There are up to 150 properties to deal with and VELCO will ask for voluntary easements, but will invoke the condemnation process through the PSB if necessary. VELCO must settle the easements by no later than late summer. VELCO has filed preliminary plans. Towns have a process to follow when filing concerns with the PSB. Per feedback that has been received, landowners are not comfortable talking about the case.  The 345 process for the segment of line under discussion was lengthy. Any adjustments to poles have to be submitted to the PSB.

 

Dick Reid, resident, asked where VELCO is in the permitting process, noting permits are required at the federal, state, and local levels. Ms. Hayden stated permits are needed from the Army Corps of Engineers, Historic Preservation, and there are various state permits that are required. A general construction permit has been conditioned by the Agency of Natural Resources.  A final line design must be filed with the permitting agencies. Mr. Neme asked if VELCO will submit a final design to the PSB and then file for state permits. Ms. Hayden replied obtaining easements is primary. There are wetland issues, but no “show stoppers”. VELCO will try to avoid sensitive spots, and will test archeological sites along the entire line. Mr. Neme again asked if VELCO will apply for permits after filing with the PSB. Ms. Hayden pointed out much civil engineering detail is needed for permits (i.e. details on wetlands). VELCO has a June time frame for the applications. Mr. Reid asked about the flood plain overlay district in Shelburne and what local permits may be required. Ms. Hayden said Section 248 process rules preempt local zoning, however, VELCO tries to work with local zoning. Application has not bee made for local permits. The Agency of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers cover Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands.

 

Steve Dates asked for clarification of Drawing 25 (the boring pit and recovering pit have structures on either end) and if the boxes be covered up. Mr. Dunn replied the boxes will be covered. Mr. Johnson explained the south end terminus of the underground line and the transition south of Bay Road to a riser structure of overhead construction that follows the railroad tracks and crosses the LaPlatte River overhead. The 75’ transition pole that is shown should be 82’, the next pole is 70’, and the next pole is 60’. Lightening arrestors increase the pole terminals height and an 82’ high structure should be shown there. The span between poles will range from 200’ to 400’. There is no consistent spacing. The poles west of Route 7 in South Burlington are 95’ to 100’ or 105’. Metal and single poles are shown on the planning sheets. Where the line crosses the river, the direction goes to the right heading west parallel to Harbor Road. Five hundred feet south of the LaPlatte River the line is on Nature Conservancy land. The line route goes onto town property at the 100’ width. There is 50’ on either side of the structure. The route goes along the edge of the multipurpose ball fields. It was asked if the line will be near the wooded strip of land by the Waldorf School. It was noted the town shares the north property line with the Waldorf School. Mr. Johnson stated there will be some tree trimming and “selective” clearing and cutting (leaving low growing vegetation under the line and removing tall trees).  VELCO maintains a 12’ maximum height for vegetation. It was noted the transmission line on 65’ poles by the athletic fields is shown above the existing trees. Mr. Dunn explained with single pole structures, the spans are shorter. The 70’ poles are angled poles. Three poles are needed with a direction change of the line. Mr. Johnson stated VELCO will look at the design in the area. Currently, there is a 90-degree angle from the railroad to the fields. The line could be brought farther south to remove the angle. Mr. Neme suggested taking the line north and cutting the corner to accommodate the ball fields. Mr. Dunn noted there were discussions of the line and the fields a while ago. Mr. Bohne noted no response from the Nature Conservancy has been received. Mr. Johnson cautioned the suggested change brings the line closer to the ball fields. One angle structure can be eliminated, but the pole will be in 70’ high. The ball field area is wide open and plantings are not feasible. A guy wire could be used, but the wire would be in the ball field area. Mr. Dunn said VELCO will review Poles #309-#314. Ms. Hayden mentioned the Nature Conservation land is a wetland area. VELCO will discuss the area with the Army Corp of Engineers.

 

Steve Dates asked for clarification of Drawing L-7.84, Blodgett landscaping (there appears to be eight small trees where the line crosses Turtle Lane). Mr. Dates asked if all that is proposed is shown on the plans. Mr. Boyle stated street trees on Harbor Road are the best way to screen the line. There has been discussion of plantings around the base of the poles, but that would result in trees in the middle of the playing fields. Tom Dunn stated VELCO will consider the plantings the town wants. It was noted the transmission lines will cross Turtle Lane behind the Rescue Squad building then turn going across the brook and angle into the proposed substation.

 

Mr. Dates asked for the landscaping plan on Sheet L-7.3. Mr. Johnson explained the proposed expansion of the substation lot on the west side of the existing Green Mountain Power substation on Harbor Road. The expansion will go east toward the TiHaul Trail and the brook (farther off the road and with additional screening). The GMP substation will be removed. The substation will be submitted in a different filing. There are four substations with different sets of drawings and filings. VELCO does not yet own the Charlotte parcel. In response to a question regarding the height of poles at the substation, Mr. Johnson said the tallest tower is 60’ at the termination. The fence area will not change or only slightly change. There will be opportunity for input from the town (on the substation) at a later date.  Request was made for a drawing showing pole heights with a scaling of height for a frame of reference. The area is sensitive and historic and will be impacted by structures and poles. The proposed substation is in the flood plain. McCabe Brook periodically floods. There is question as to whether the undergrounding of the line will change the hydrology of the area. Ms. Hayden stated the Agency of Natural Resources addressed the issue at the PSB hearing. The substation is not in the flood plain itself. Mr. Reid suggested VELCO secure a bond in the event of problems. The town needs to be safeguarded. Ms. Hayden stated the PSB approved the elevation of the substation relative to the brook. New construction will be the same elevation as the existing substation. The roadside drops sharply to McCabe Brook. TiHaul and the brook veer off away in opposite directions. It was noted the plans show an 88’ pole (Pole #302) beyond the substation before an A-frame into the substation on the south side of Harbor Road. Mr. Johnson assured Power Engineers is aware of this. The pole can be reduced by nine feet (79’ high) for the actual filing. VELCO will look at the clearance over the distribution and roadside as well as mitigation for the pole from Harbor Road.

 

In describing the next section of the route, Mr. Johnson said the line follows the center of the existing route and crosses McCabe Brook to the Meach Cove property. Pole #296 will be higher than expected. An H-frame horizontal configuration for Poles #294-#298 versus single vertical poles can be investigated to see if the height can be lessened. Mr. Furrer commented as proposed the design will have a huge impact on Shelburne Museum.  Mr. Dunn said pole heights on the Meach Cove property are proposed at 47’, but until the design is the actual height is not known. VELCO will revisit Poles #294-#298 and having 150’ width with the H-frames. The H-frame configuration used in Essex is on flat terrain so the width is not as noticeable. Mr. Dunn stated the poles in the detailed analysis are higher than originally proposed due to code requirements, spacing between conductors, and whether the line is dead-end or angled. Straight-line poles can be shorter. The angled configuration has three conductors, one on top of the other. Final design will be based on the conductor configuration and grade clearance.

 

Mr. Neme asked for clarification about poles impact views by the Museum. Mr. Furrer said the poles north of Bostwick Road to Harbor Road will have an impact. Mr. Furrer questioned how the H-frames with a 150’ right-of-way will be modeled and what that will look like viewed from the top deck of the Ticonderoga. There was mention of the PSB mandating VELCO to provide the Museum with a simulation of the height of the poles. Mr. Boyle stated the H-Frames will be 70’ high. Mr. Furrer requested a detailed drawing showing pole heights, the H-frame configurations, and the 150’ and 100’ clear cuts. Mr. Boyle stated the H-frames will pass through a wooded area south of Harbor Road. The clear cut will not be visible on a horizontal plane unless looking obliquely and then more of a shadowy line (the 150’ cut) would be visible. Joyce Errecart recalled during the PSB hearing VELCO talked about poles being 60’ high yet now the heights are very different. Mr. Boyd explained there is rolling topography and a ravine both of which accentuate the 150’ cut because of the sloping grade. Originally there was discussion of going through wetlands and McCabe Brook, but the Agency of Natural Resources did not want encroachment so the line location was shifted. VELCO will look at the design for a lower pole height. Mr. Furrer referenced Page 144 regarding adverse aesthetic impacts that called for lower poles.  Mr. Neme requested a simulation from VELCO so the Selectboard can review the design. Mr. Dates asked VELCO to share in GIS mapping costs for the route with the town now that litigation is complete and to take the lead to get the project started. Mr. Dunn stated Terry Boyle can do GIS images in-house. Mr. Dates said he can produce a topographic map of the deforested area showing poles and pole placements. Mr. Dunn confirmed Mr. Boyle can do this, but the locations and view points (such as from the Ticonderoga) must be known. Mitigation could possible be added as well.

 

Mr. Johnson explained the next section of the proposed line route from Pole #294 south to Pole #284 which was moved south along the centerline of the corridor. The pole could be reduced nine feet to 65.5’. The next pole (#283) can be reduced by four and a half feet. Pole #278 can be reduced by five feet to approximately 47’. Poles #281 and #282 at the underground distribution (Limerick Road) are intended as overhead. The pole at Bostwick Road (#274) is moving farther south and Pole #275 shifts closer to the distribution underground by the bridge. At that point there may be the possibility of an additional structure to allow for shorter poles. There are no specific numbers yet. There was a question of whether the undergrounding could be extended one more pole span to avoid a pole on the highest point in Shelburne. Mr. Dunn explained the line goes underground on the north side of Bostwick Road crossing under the bridge and rising up south of Bostwick Road (Pole #274). There was discussion of moving the pole farther south by Wake Robin. The high point is Green Mountain Power. Access to the pole for maintenance is necessary. VELCO will have Power Engineers look at the area. The concern is sag in the line at the road. In response to a question regarding mitigation in the area, Mr. Boyle explained existing trees will act as background and street trees will fill in along the road.

 

Mr. Dunn stated VELCO could have revised drawings by next week, but the GIS map may not be ready. Mr. Neme asked Mr. Dunn to contact the Town Manager. An audience member expressed concern that the right-of-way as proposed will give VELCO carte blanch to do further changes. VELCO has talked about a 100’, 150’ and 50’ right-of-way. It appears as an on-going process with a moving target. Mr. Dunn assured VELCO has no plans to upgrade the line, however, if an upgrade is needed, VELCO must go before the PSB.

 

Mr. Johnson mentioned staking the right-of-way of the underground portion of the route will not be done unless requested by landowners. VELCO will notify the landowners.

 

Mr. Neme asked if the proposed 100’-150’ widths are standard practices. Mr. Johnson replied the widths are typical for a 115 kV line. Mr. Neme asked if there are other jurisdictions where VECLO can make do with less width. Mr. Johnson explained there are code minimums. A balance of cost effectiveness for maintenance and reliability must be found. As the right-of-way in wooded areas is narrowed the risk increases for impact from vegetation. Minimum width varies on the spans. Conductor blowout is based on code clearance. For example, on I-289 in Essex the 115 kV line has a 150’ right-of-way, but it is open land and does not need clear cutting. There are areas along the proposed corridor in the 248 process where VELOC is ordered to have protected areas and those areas are not maintained as well.

 

Cathy Phillips, resident, expressed concern about the use of herbicides. Mr. Neme asked if VELCO can take a “whole town” approach versus a “property-by-property” approach with herbicide application. Mr. Johnson replied VELCO has not ever taken a “whole town” approach.

 

Ms. Errecart noted the Vermont Legislature implemented a 10-year upgrade planning process and energy companies must notify of upgrades ten years in advance.

 

An audience member asked if more poles could be reduced in height, such as along the ball fields. Mr. Johnson replied to a certain extent there are limits. Terrain variations govern heights. As more poles are added, cost and clutter increases. The matter needs to be reviewed on a pole-by-pole basis. The ball field was discussed a year ago. Steel poles will be used at angles and transition structures. Ten to 25 steel poles are proposed mainly at railroad and/or road crossings. An audience member expressed concern about health risks associated with lower pole heights.

 

There were no further comments or questions.

 

5.         APPROVE APPLICATION FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,315 TO HELP FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN’S STORMWATER PERMIT

 

7.         CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF BOARD REPRESENTATIVES TO SIGN WEEKLY PAYROLL AND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE WARRANTS

MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to approve a memo from Peter Frankenburg, Shelburne Financial Officer, dated 03/17/2006, regarding a proposed Selectboard delegate rotating schedule to approve weekly payroll and accounts payable warrants as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

8.         CONSIDER ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSED NEW TOWN PLAN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Neme explained the Board needs to acknowledge receipt of the draft Town Plan and set a public hearing date. Mr. Bohne added if substantial changes are made to the proposed Town Plan, the document returns to the Planning Commission for comment. Two public hearings are needed before adoption of the draft Town Plan. Mr. Roesler stated his preference to thoroughly review the draft before acknowledging receipt. Mr. Bohne suggested the Board acknowledge receipt, but not set a public hearing date. A special meeting can be held for the public hearing or the Board can include the hearing on the agenda for the May meeting.

 

MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to acknowledge receipt of the proposed new Town Plan from the Planning Commission. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

Mr. Bohne noted the liquor licenses before the Board are set to expire on 04/30/06. The liquor license applications were vetted by the Shelburne Police Department. The Selectboard signed the liquor license documents as presented.

 

10.       CONSIDER RATIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP TO THE VELCO COMMITTEE

Mr. Bohne explained the Selectboard empowered the VELCO Committee to nominate additional committee members and Gail Henderson-King has been nominated for consideration.

 

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to appoint Gail Henderson-King to the VELCO Ad Hoc Committee.

11.       APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF 02/14/06, 02/21/06, & 03/08/06

Mr. Bohne reported on the following items:

 

Mr. Talley announced he will be out of town April 11th, 12th and 25th.

 

Ms. McKnight suggested there be discussion of appointments for regional meetings. Ms. McKnight asked if there is funding for Selectboard development. Mr. Bohne replied funds are available in the Board’s Discretionary Fund.

 

Mr. Boyd suggested setting up a call-in telephone line with discussion protocols to accept calls from the public during meetings as a method of boosting public participation and input. Ms. McKnight suggested exploring a bulletin board-type blog site on the Town website. Mr. Bohne suggested getting more public participation could be a discussion topic at the Selectboard retreat.

 

Mr. Neme suggested there be a follow-up discussion on VELCO to develop a consolidated plan. It is hoped the VELCO Ad Hoc Committee will caucus to bring a position back to the Board. VELCO does not seem willing to work with Gary Smith (GIS mapping), preferring to use their own people and do the work in-house. The Town needs to get a formal extension of time. Staff will do as much as possible to secure a committee recommendation. Ms. McKnight asked if the Town can seek a continuation from the PSB citing the open questions and lack of modeling of what is proposed to allow making meaningful decision. VELCO needs to show mitigation effects (where mitigation will occur and what will be done). Mr. Bohne said staff will have a discussion with the Town Attorney regarding next steps.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.