    |
  |
        |
|
|
June 2006
SELECTBOARD MINUTES OF MEETNG JUNE 13, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Neme, Chairperson; Jim Talley, Chris Boyd, Jane McKnight, Robert Roesler. ADMINISTRATION: Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Tucker Holland, Sue McLellan, Mary Luxton-Jones, Jeff Jackson, Derrick Senior, Kathleen O’Brien, Dorothea Pennar, Barbara Hamblett, Rick Peterson, David Webster, Gwen Webster, Maureen O’Brien, Dick Reid, Joan Lenes, David Davis, Chris Cole, Trafton Crandall, Laura Crandall, James Elderton, Jim Mack, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press), and others. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Neme, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Bohne noted that Final Comments regarding VELCO are not available. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION VELCO Derrick Senior, resident, submitted copies of two letters related to overhead power lines and EMF health risks, specifically childhood leukemia. Mr. Senior read a letter from his daughter, and asked the Board to take a stand against overhead power lines within 300’ of places where children live, play and go to school. The submitted letters should be made a part of the VELCO PSB (Public Service Board) hearings record, stated Mr. Derrick. Mr. Neme briefly explained that he recused himself from the VELCO project proceedings because the firm he works for has done work for VELCO. Mr. Talley assumed the duties of Chairperson for VELCO discussions. Shelia Braun, UVM Graduate student and Shelburne resident, reviewed the June 2004 Draper study findings related to health issues and power lines. The results of the study were not released until after the PSB VELCO hearing ruling. Ms. Braun provided copies of a “Houses For Sale” research project. Mr. Bohne explained the Town decided not to pursue a health risk argument during the PSB hearings. Jim Dumont, representing New Haven, VT, brought the issue forward during the VELCO hearings and again on appeal. It would be up to New Haven and Mr. Dumont to bring the issue up again. Mr. Neme clarified that the PSB rejected the argument due to a lack of supportive information and experts. 4. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING: UPDATE OF THE TOWN PLAN Mr. Neme pointed out the hearing is the second of two required public hearings on the draft Town Plan. Mr. Roesler expressed concern the Plan does not deal with areas for commercial/industrial development. Shelburne has a few small industrial areas (Harbor Industries and Executive Drive) which have little impact on reducing the residential property tax. The Town should encourage more clean industry in order to broaden the tax base. Rick Peterson, Chairman of the Shelburne Planning Commission, stated the Planning Commission is aware of the issue in creating a mixed-use district. There is the potential for expanding commercial use on Route 7 north. The Planning Commission will revisit commercial/industrial uses on Executive Drive when updating the zoning regulations. Dean Pierce, Shelburne Town Planner, noted the Planning Commission has considered pulling the Executive Drive commercial district out of the mixed use zone (i.e. leaving it as Commercial/Industrial). The Vermont Teddy Bear area will remain as is and the area west of the railroad tracks and Harbor Industries is marked for residential use. Ms. McKnight asked about affordable housing and impact on the Grand List. Mr. Pierce said staff will research the matter. Mr. Talley noted language was written as “…10 percent shall be affordable…” indicating ten percent of a development is required to be affordable. Mr. Peterson said that the Planning Commission has not discussed the matter as yet. The Town Plan is a guiding document. The language also includes words like “approximately” in addition to “shall”. There was discussion of Section 19 related to the Conservation Fund which should be referenced in the Open Space Plan. It was suggested the last sentence be deleted in the section. James Elderton, 120 Falls Road, asked if the section on land use (pages 3-21) applied to the entire town. An individual in the audience mentioned a neighbor who has a frame shop with parking, and that a sidewalk is not needed in front of the frame shop. There is a sewer pipe located in the area. Maureen O’Brien, resident, expressed concern about the word “required” versus “encouraged” related to development in rural areas which also has open space. On page 16, the Town Plan mentions discouraging development in the rural area. Ms. O’Brien suggested there be leeway regarding density in open space and PUDs related to clustering development. A developer may want to keep a lot as open space for agricultural use versus a common space with many clustered houses. Mr. Neme explained the PUD density bonus if portions of a development are conserved. Options include counting portions of lots for a density bonus. There is concern about the landowner doing something on the ‘conserved’ land and the area not remaining open space, stated Mr. Neme. Rick Peterson noted the Planning Commission has been seeing development proposals where half of each lot’s back yard is part of “open space”. Ms. O’Brien mentioned maintaining open space in perpetuity is a nice idea, but this space could be changed in the future with updates of the Town Plan. Mr. Neme pointed out concerns regarding the Village map (Page 6) that show the village boundary as east of the LaPlatte River. The Planning Commission should look at both sides of the river to create an overlay area, said Mr. Neme. Mr. Peterson pointed out the east side of the river is predominately conserved land. Mr. Neme asked the Planning Commission to comment on the debate of creating viewscape setbacks on Route 7 versus a streetscape of buildings set close to the road. Mr. Peterson replied the Planning Commission decided to leave the setback formula as is. Suggested Changes/Additions include:
The final version of the Town Plan will be posted on the Town’s website. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to continue discussion of the draft Town Plan to 06/27/2006. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 5. PRESENTATION BY CHRIS COLE, CCTA GENERAL MANAGER, OF POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE CCTA LOCAL ASSESSMENT FORMULA Chris Cole, CCTA General Manager, reviewed the policy discussion of potential alternatives to the local assessment. CCTA’s charter allows for a change in the member town assessment formula. The CCTA Board is seeking to change the funding formula with the goal of improving existing services and creating efficiencies. The CCTA Board will return with specific language for review as well as approval of the FY08 budget. Steve Falbel, CCTA consultant, explained the mileage formula assessment for fixed route services per the memo, dated 01/16/2006, and reviewed the proposed new formula options as outlined in a memo, dated 02/15/2006. One alternative will allow some flexibility in route changes or cutting service. One option is to use driver pay hours versus mileage. Option Formula #2 is based on population (weighted service much like what is done in Boston). The memo of 03/15/2006 outlines the formula for new members to pay a share of the funding calculation. Major route calculations will be restructured. Mr. Talley interjected CCTA must show accountability as a part of any funding formula(s). There was a question about member towns having veto power. Mr. Falbel said that member town veto power does not exist now and will not in the future. Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of the time it will take a municipality to withdraw from CCTA. Mr. Cole explained the process, noting it takes a year to withdraw from membership. Mr. Bohne asked if the proposed changes will impact other municipalities that want to join the service. Mr. Cole replied the assessment formula will be charged when a town implements new service. The town will pay for 100 percent of the service until the assessment reaches a fare box recovery level. High ridership is needed to recover the fare box. There will be a new definition of “new member” services. 6. CONSIDER FINAL COMMENTS ON THE VELCO FILING OF THE FINAL DESIGN FOR THE NORTHEWEST RELIABLITY PROJECT Mr. Neme recused himself and Mr. Talley assumed the duties of Chairperson. Mr. Bohne reported several interested parties have asked for additional time to review the new VELCO design that was recently filed. VELCO has agreed to the request. The Shelburne Ad Hoc VELCO Committee is still reviewing the design details. A letter will be drafted outlining the Town’s position to be presented to the PSB. Issues of concern include Meach Cove, McCabe’s Brook, the Davis Park line route, the Town playing fields line route, and landscaping design details. Comments are due by 06/15/2006. Dean Pierce reported that a survey mistake related to the railroad track right-of-way has caused a shift to the east in the underground portion of the line, bringing the line within 20-25’ of the mobile homes on Penny Lane. Town comments on the railroad right-of-way shift have been forwarded to Joe McLean. There is question as to whether there is potential for an overlay where the railroad right-of-way is wider. VELCO will be asked to retain brush currently slated to be eliminated. There is last minute good news regarding the H-frame issues related to the undergrounding of the distribution lines on Harbor Road, which will be a big improvement. The GMP lines will be buried and not the VELCO lines. This eliminates cluster and brings the VELCO lines lower. The Town is seeking metal poles versus wood to eliminate guy wires at the playing fields. The Town hopes to meet with the ANR to try to keep as many mature trees as possible. Joe McLean will draft a letter to the PSB and include Town comments. Ms. McKnight asked to review the route simulation image as the Board reviews the draft letter. The simulation is available on DVD. The DVD does not include the updated pole design by Blodgett’s. Mr. Neme resumed the duties of Chairperson. 7. CONSIDER AMENDING THE ORDINANCE FOR THE CARE AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS (First Reading) Paul Bohne reported the proposed ordinance language includes a letter from Amanda Laffery. Risk factor language is included in the draft ordinance. Mr. Talley noted he received many calls from the public regarding the enforcement section of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Talley asked if there is a log of complaints. Jim Mack, dispatcher, stated officers always respond to complaints and a log is kept. There have been a few repeat offenders. Mary Luxton-Jones, resident, commented on the lack of ability to enforce the ordinance as drafted (i.e. an animal at large will likely be gone by the time the complaint is made). Ms. Luxton-Jones also spoke against prohibiting female dogs in heat from going outside, especially if the dogs are on a leash. Problems occur with unleashed and/or out of control animals. Jim Mack observed a female dog in heat being outside is at risk for an unintended breeding, though there has only been one reported incident of this happening in the past 16 years. Mr. Talley asked for a definition of “running at large”. Mr. Bohne replied if a dog is under command by the handlers but then bothers someone, then the animal is not under control. Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of language in Section 9 related to “apprehend” versus language in Section 6 and 7 related to “impounding”. Following discussion the Selectboard suggested language saying “in support of Sections 6 and 7, then in Section 9 you can do…” MOTION by Ms. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to amend the Ordinance for the Care and Control of Animals to delete reference to Section 4.d, First Reading. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to approve the amended Ordinance for the Care and Control of Animals and to maintain Section 3 as written. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Mr. Boyd to exclude language allowing dog obedience classes in a municipal building. DISCUSSION: Mr. Roesler pointed out dog obedience classes are conducted in a controlled manner. The people running the classes do a good job cleaning up the area. The classes are held after business hours. It appears that staff is trying to reach a compromise. The Board needs to take action on the matter and move on. Ms. McKnight agreed animal control issues regarding dog obedience classes are unique and different from animals in Town Hall. Mr. Neme noted issues raised involved allergies and liability. Mr. Neme asked if there was a way to put the liability of bringing a dog into a municipal building on the animal owner. Mr. Bohne stated the ordinance is not in response to any particular issue. It was a civil rights issue according to the Town Attorney (Steve Stitzel). Ms. McKnight mentioned some people are afraid of dogs. Ms. McKnight felt there is no compelling reason to bring a dog into Town Hall. Ms. McKnight said that she agreed to let the Friendly Amendment die. VOTE: 4 ayes, 1 nay (McKnight); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to add language from Section 6 and Section 7 regarding “impounding” to Section 9 in support of apprehending a pet or wolf-hybrid. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to approve the Ordinance for the Care and control of Animals as amended. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 8. CONSIDER AMENDING THE PARKING ORDINANCE (First Reading) Mr. Roesler expressed concern that waiver fees may be too low. Mr. Talley stated a one dollar parking fee is not much of a deterrent. The Board can set any fee amount up to $500 maximum per state statute. Following discussion the Selectboard suggested the following changes: · Section 12, Waiver Fees, First offense -$10, Second offense - $50, Third offense - $100, Fourth offense - $250, Fifth and subsequent offenses $300. · Section 13, Civil Fine for Ordinance Violation, First offense - $15, Second offense - $75, Third offense - $150. Fourth and subsequent offenses - $375. Mr. Bohne pointed out that Section 2.h might pose a problem. The police will wake people up to move cars so the highway can be plowed. Jim Mack, Shelburne Police dispatcher, stated two cars were towed this past winter. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to amend the Town of Shelburne Parking Ordinance as follows: · Section 2.s - change to read “…along either side of the circle off of Harbor Road at the north…”; · Section 4 – replace the words “motor number” with the word “VIN”; · Section 12 - change to read “Waiver Fees: first offense -$10; second offense - $50; third offense - $100; fourth offense - $250; fifth and subsequent offenses $300; · Section 13 – change to read “Civil Fine for Ordinance Violation: first offense - $15; second offense - $75; third offense - $150; fourth and subsequent offenses - $375. DISCUSSION: Jim Mack asked about cars being towed if tow zone signs are not visible or posted. It was suggested an article be published in the local newspaper regarding the winter parking ban. Staff will investigate signage requirements. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 9. CONSIDER APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWNS OF CHARLOTTE AND SHELBURNE (Involving Water Supplied by Shelburne to a Charlotte lot) Mr. Bohne explained the agreement between the towns of Shelburne and Charlotte to supply Shelburne water to a lot in Charlotte. Two of the Charlotte lots were purchased by Trafton and Laura Crandall who have asked to switch the water authority from one lot to the other. The request has been approved by the Charlotte Planning Commission and Charlotte Selectboard. A copy of the plat was provided to the Board. Trafton Crandall, owner of the lot in Charlotte, clarified that when the lots were purchased there was confusion about which of the lots had the water authority. A boundary line adjustment has been filed. The Tax Map exhibit has not been recorded. Lot 2-1 is the lot with the water authority in the agreement. Lot numbers were changed at some point. The Charlotte Selectboard indicated the water supply request will be approved if the Shelburne Selectboard also approves the request. There is a single tap on the unimproved lot. A well was drilled on Lot 1 which provides ample water supply. Lot 1 is now a permitted lot with a well. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to approve the Amendment to the Settlement Agreement between the towns of Charlotte and Shelburne as presented. DISCUSSION: Ms. McKnight asked for clarification of lot numbers. Mr. Crandall explained Lot 2-1 is the northern lot, now known as Lot 1. Lot 2-1.a is Lot 2. The property line adjustment moved the boundary from one side of the existing barn to the other side of the barn. AMENDMENT by Mr. Roesler and seconded by Mr. Talley, to authorize the Shelburne Town Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the Town of Shelburne. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 10. CONSIDER ADOPTING THE SEWER BUDGET FOR FY 2007 Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the proposed Sewer Budget for FY 2007 as outlined in memos dated 05/19/2006 and 06/13/2006. The minimum quarterly usage is proposed to be changed from 1,000 to 3,000 gallons. Mr. Frankenburg also reviewed a projection of future rates, which assumes capacity fees equivalent to 25 single family residential units will be collected annually. There was discussion of minimum usage and a decrease in total gallons billed due to weather and other factors. Total gallons projected to be billed in FY 2006-07 are 3% lower than the gallons assumed in the FY 2005-06 budget. It was also suggested that staff examine the fixed costs vs. variable (flow dependent) costs in the budget. . MOTIN by Mr. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to adopt the draft Sewer Budget for FY2007 as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 11. CONSIDER APPOINTING A TRUSTEE TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to appoint Nora von Stange to the vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees for a term of three years. VOTE: unanimous (4-0) [Mr. Boyd not present for vote.]; motion carried. 12. CONSIDER APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE BIKE/PED COMMITTEE MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to appoint Fred Schmidt to the Bike/Pedestrian Committee for a three-year term. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 13. CONSIDER RENEWAL OF A GRANT ANTICIPATION NOTE FROM THE CHITTENDEN BANK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HULLCREST STORMWATER PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 3.9 PERCENT MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to renew the Grant Anticipation Note from the Chittenden Bank for construction of the Hullcrest Stormwater Project in the amount of $450,000 at an interest rate of 3.9 percent for up to six months. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The Selectboard signed the document(s). 14. CONSIDER RECEIVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BYLAWS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 11, 2006 Mr. Bohne explained the proposed language changes relative to the redevelopment project in the village (tear down the Shelburne Inn Motel). MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to accept the amendment to the zoning bylaws as presented and to set a public hearing date of July 11, 2006. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 15. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 2006 MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to approve the minutes of 05/09/2006 with the following corrections/additions: Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 6th sentence - change to read “…the Town Plan…”; Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence - change to read “Zoning Regulations may…the Town Plan and may need to be updated.”; Page 3, 3rd paragraph, last sentence - delete “(the Board suggested…from the ordinance)”. VOTE: 3 ayes, 2 abstentions (Mr. Roesler, Mr. Boyd); motion carried. May 23, 2006 MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve the minutes of 05/23/2006 with the following correction/addition: Page 2, 2nd full paragraph, 2nd sentence - correct the spelling of “Mobil”. VOTE: 4 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Neme); motion carried. June 1, 2006 MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to approve the minutes of 06/01/2006 as written. VOTE: 4 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Boyd); motion carried. 16. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Bohne reported on the following items:
17. MEMBER CONCERNS Mr. Boyd expressed concern about Planning Commission review of projects and asked about Planning Commission authority with regard to public access easements when an applicant meets all criteria for a development. Mr. Neme stated authority would come from the Town Plan, zoning bylaws for open space and public access easements. Mr. Bohne noted that there has been discussion between the Planning Commission and the Shelburne Point developers. Easement agreements will appear in any conditions and findings of fact issued by the Planning Commission. Mr. Neme said it is common practice to attempt to get easements for bike/pedestrians routes during the review process. Jeff Jackson, resident and Shelburne Point owner, said per the tape of the meeting on 4/28/06 the Chairperson of the Planning Commission says they do not have authority to ask for public access. Mr. Jackson said he has spent over a year and a half dealing with the issue which the Planning Commission continues to bring up during the review process. Ms. McKnight noted the Shelburne Point easement issue has not been presented to the Selectboard. Mr. Jackson stated the matter has not been resolved. It is a Planning Commission issue versus a public issue in the sense that residents have not shown up at the (Planning Commission) meetings. Mr. Jackson said he understands and respects the Planning Commission’s role, and while easements are a valuable discussion to have, in the end it is the property owner’s decision to consider granting public access. During the site visit of the proposed subdivision on Shelburne Point with the Planning Commission one member suggested a public easement right through the meadow proposed as conserved land. The Planning Commission has proposed changes to the Lakeshore Overlay District, which has the appearance of enacting zoning after the fact, stated Mr. Jackson. There is language in the proposed zoning changes that will impact what a property owner can do with their own land. Many of the changes seem aimed at the Shelburne Point project, such as changing to a 200’ lakefront setback which moves three of the proposed house lots and building envelopes into the big meadow. There will be house lots with elevation rises putting the homes high enough to view through the crowns of the trees. Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the proposed changes will have significant financial impact on property owners caught between the 100’ and 200’lake front setback. Mr. Bohne noted the Planning Commission will likely hold public hearings on the proposed zoning changes no sooner than late summer. Ms. McKnight suggested accepting public communications via e-mail and posting proposed changes on the Town’s website. Staff will investigate the matter. Mr. Talley reported that the Shelburne Fire and Rescue departments will meet with the community during a volunteer drive Saturday, 06/17/2006, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 18. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.
Town of Shelburne SelectboardMINUTES OF MEETINGJUNE 27, 2006MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Talley, Jane McKnight, Robert Roesler. (Chris Neme and Chris Boyd were absent.) ADMINISTRATION: Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer. OTHERS PRESENT David Webster, Rick Peterson, Tom Moreau, Gene Cloutier, Krister Adams, Ellin London, Lucy Gibson, Dave Roberts, Bernie Gagnon, Cheryl Roberts, Don Phelps, Jeff Jackson, Matt Chamberlain, Mary Phelps, Monica Varsukopoulos, Betty Marcher, Lisa Mann, Judy Greer, Karen Stackpole, Michaels, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press), and others. 6:00 p.m. Executive Session – Personnel 1. CALL TO ORDER (regular meeting) In the absence of Chris Neme, Mr. Talley called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. CHANGES TO AGENDA None. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point resident, submitted a written statement, dated 06/08/2006, addressed to the Town Planner in opposition to proposed changes to the Lakeshore Overlay district. Mr. Jackson asked the Selectboard to withdraw the proposed changes. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR A VERMONT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANT IN SUPPORT OF THE PURCHASE OF THE SHELBURNEWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK Paul Bohne reported a HUD implementation grant will provide $750,000 for the purchase of the Shelburnewood Mobile Home Park. HFI will administer the grant and the Town will act as a pass-through and be responsible for the audit at the end of the process. Krister Adams, Vermont Housing Authority and HFI representative, stated it is time to secure the property. Planning studies are on going. The implementation grant will pay for the mobile home park and rehabilitation of the park’s utilities (water, sewer, electricity). Future development of affordable housing, mixed use and land conservation along the LaPlatte River are continued points of discussion with the Town. The grant does not require a local funding match. 5. CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT 2007 ANNUAL BUDGET Tom Moreau, Chittenden Solid Waste District General Manager, reviewed the proposed CSWD FY2007 budget that includes expenses, revenue, and a $440,000 addition to the Reserve Fund. The Reserve Fund has a balance of $6.8 million and will be used to purchase and permit a regional landfill site in Williston. The budget shows a salary increase for staff authorized by the CSWD Board. Benefits actually showed a decrease. There was discussion of the proposed landfill acquisition which will be a cash transaction, and the permitting schedule. The landfill is in the design process. Public hearings will be held. The expectation is the landfill will open in 2009-2010 and a $100 million to $120 million net payback from landfill is projected. Gene Cloutier, Shelburne representative on the CSWD board, spoke in support of the CSWD budget and management of CSWD. In response to questions, Mr. Moreau explained the MRF has been in operation since 2003. CSWD will be renegotiating the contract with Casella. The biosolids rate is estimated at approximately $71.00/wet ton. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to support the CSWD FY2007 budget as presented. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 6. CONSIDER REPORT BY SMART MOBILITY ON A STUDY OF SHELBURNE VILLAGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES Dave Roberts, CCMPO Planner, and Lucy Gibson, SMART Mobility representative, reported a roundabout design at the Harbor Road/Route 7 intersection would include property outside the state right-of-way and would take seven or eight years to complete. It would involve the Town, CCMPO and VTrans. The SMART Mobility Report study that included potential alternatives was reviewed. Electronic copies are available to interested parties. Ms. Gibson explained the estimated costs on proposed alternatives are a combination of funding sources (80 percent federal, 10 percent state ad 10 percent local). Ms. Gibson showed a slide of the roundabout and explained that the roundabout would impact the Clayton building, the Mobil station and a tip of the green. Comments from VTrans on the study were distributed. Ms. Gibson noted approximately 18,000 vehicles currently travel through the Harbor Road/Route 7 intersection. It is projected that 20,000 vehicles could use the intersection in the future. PUBLIC COMMENTS A gentleman in the audience asked about the impact of the roundabout traffic in the village, and if the roundabout should be broadened to include moving through traffic out of the village. Mr. Talley noted none of the alternatives were being proposed at this time. A roundabout is being studied as a way to re-route local school traffic. David Webster, resident, suggested encouraging school children to ride the school bus or parents dropping off their children on Falls Road. A gentleman in the audience spoke in support of the roundabout. A woman in the audience commented on her experience with traffic circles in Massachusetts (traffic circles caused major accidents). The difference between a traffic circle and a roundabout was explained. A roundabout is smaller and traffic moves at a slower rate. There were no further comments. 7. CONTINUED HEARING ON THE UPDATED TOWN PLAN The Board reviewed the following sections:
· Mr. Talley asked if Action #1, Tax Incentives, can really work. Mr. Peterson replied the Planning Commission said to “explore” tax incentives. It was suggested to revisit language saying “…development in the water/sewer district would be encouraged even when it would impact sensitive ecological areas.” · Public Safety was discussed of transition into paid Fire and Rescue departments versus volunteers. Mr. Pierce explained there was an attempt to track the number of calls (in Volume II) and there was a gap. · The Selectboard had questions regarding the Parks and Recreation section related to park upgrades, such as a dock, facilities. Mr. Talley said he was interested in preserving the VAST trail and access. Ms. McKnight asked if there were any issues regarding runoff into the lakeshore or beach, or if the Stormwater Ordinance was incorporated into the Town Plan. Preserving the beach including water quality should be stated. There were no further comments. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to continue the public hearing on the proposed update of the Town Plan to 7/11/2006 with a discussion related to housing. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 8. STATEMENT REGARDING ACTION ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ON 139 MONARCH DRIVE Mr. Talley reported that the Town issued a Notice of Violation to the owner of 139 Monarch Drive for alleged violations and failure to secure a permit to cut trees on the site. Mr. Bohne added the owner has seven days to comply with conditions, and if not, the Town can levy a fine of $100 per day. There is an appeal period. The Town is in contact with the ANR regarding Act 250. Robert Platt, resident, reported the Town design plan regarding color of the building was not being followed. There was brief discussion of the house color as “earth tone” and the house color being gray. 9. CONSIDER TWO REQUESTS FROM NEIGHBORS FOR THE TOWN TO SELL A PORTION OF TOWN OWNED LAND FRONTING BAY ROAD BETWEEN 485 AND 499 BAY ROAD Mr. Bohne provided the Board with copies of the tax map showing the subject property. In 1978, the Town received a gift of 0.9 acres of land for a park. There was a “finger” section of the parcel 65’ wide that connected to Bay Road. Mr. Michaels purchased the Morrill lot and asked to purchase a part of the Town park lot. The conveyance did not include language that the lot would ‘revert” to the original developer. The Town Attorney advised the Town that if the portion were to be sold, then the Town would need permission from the original conveyer. A 185’ x 150’ back section will remain. State statute outlines the process for public notice of a potential sale. Mr. Talley pointed out that there is a sewer easement through the lot and down the finger portion to Bay Road. The value of the property is $65,000, but the lot is not build-able. If the finger portion is sold, the Town could retain a path easement. There are two people interested in purchasing a portion of the finger – Mr. Michaels and Mr. Jeffers. Ms. McKnight asked if public notice of the sale could potentially bring in more bidders. Mr. Roesler questioned having the Town keep the land if it will not be used. Mr. Talley said that the back portion of the lot is suitable for a park if the neighborhood wanted one. Ms. McKnight suggested the lot be used for development of a small affordable housing unit. Mr. Bohne reiterated that the lot is non-conforming and not usable as a buildable lot. The lot is less than 10,000 square feet which is less than the minimal lot size. PUBLIC COMMENT Judy Greer, abutter to the subject lot, said it was understood the lot was to be used as a park and the Town would not let the developer build there. There is a sand pile that children played on in the past. Now the children have discovered the animals and natural resources in the woods. Mr. Talley clarified that the Michaels and Jeffers are only interested in the narrow strip of land, not the area by the cul de sac. Karen Stackpole, Bayview neighbor, questioned what would prevent further subdivision and sale in the future. Ms. Stackpole noted there is a path on the narrow strip that is well used and the lot is enjoyed by the neighborhood. Ms. Stackpole spoke in support of a park or natural area. It was important not to set precedent. A gentleman whose property abuts the lot expressed concern that he was not notified of the pending sale and he would be interested in purchasing the whole lot himself since he has maintained the lot and brush hogged it since 1983. His children have enjoyed the property. Also, according to Art Shields, the original developer, if the Town sells the land then Mr. Shields would like a portion of the money. Mr. Michaels asked if the Town had surveyed the lot. Mr. Bohne replied the Town used the tax map. Mr. Michaels mentioned his driveway washes out on a regular basis and he would like top put in pavement, but not on town owned land. Linda Lavallette, abutter, said the wooded part of the lot is a nature park. The finger is a piece of dead land between the Jeffers and Morrills. Ms. Lavallette expressed concern that a path easement on the finger will become ‘Grand Central Station’. The Town can maintain the status quo (retain ownership) and grant Mr. Michaels an easement. Mr. Talley suggested the Selectboard schedule a site visit. Mr. Talley read a section from the 10/28/1998 Planning Commission minutes related to a walkway to Bay Road on the finger of the lot. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to continue the public hearing regarding the potential sale of Town land to 7/11/2006, and to schedule a site visit. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 10. HEARING (2nd Reading) TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ORDINANCE FOR THE CARE AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to accept the amended Ordinance for the Care and Control of Animals, Second Reading, as revised at the 06/12/2006 Selectboard meeting. DISCUSSION: Betty Marcher, resident, asked that the Board delete the sentence that prohibits dogs from Town Hall. Ms. Marcher said she contacted three surrounding towns and there were no issues with dogs. The dogs were allowed in the South Burlington and Winooski municipal buildings. Ms. Marcher asked who will enforce the ordinance. Susan McMullin, resident, reported that she experienced another problem with dogs off their leashes at the Bay Road path. Gwen Webster, resident, said the Town should either allow all dogs or none in municipal buildings. There has never been a problem regarding dogs in heat in town. As to the liability issue, if the Town does not have a law on the books, then the Town is not liable. Mr. Bohne stated the section relative to dogs in heat was eliminated. Mr. Roesler noted the Town Attorney uncovered several cases where a town and dog owner were liable. Ms. Marcher interjected the problem occurred at a public housing project, not town owned property. Mr. Talley reported the Board received more telephone calls about the dog ordinance than on the Blodgett and VELCO issues combined. Ms. McKnight asked if carrying an animal is considered restrained. Lisa Mann, town employee and resident, asked for clarification if someone brought a dog into the Shelburne Town Hall and the animal is not licensed. Ms. Mann suggested posting a set of etiquette rules in lieu of a regulation. Ms. McKnight asked if there is a difference between a visitor bringing an animal into Town Hall versus an employee. Mr. Bohne said that no employee has ever brought in their animal(s). Ms. McKnight asked if the proposed ordinance prohibits dogs or wolf hybrids only or does it apply to cats, snakes, and such. Mr. Talley clarified that the ordinance language specifies “domestic dog or wolf-hybrid”. There was further discussion of the differences between hospital therapy dogs, dog owners who have their dogs at a place of business and bringing dogs into Town Hall, how to assess “risk” recognizing that there are people who are afraid of dogs, and if there is evidence of risk. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Mr. Roesler to approve a revision to add “is leased” to Section 3. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT: Ms. McKnight mentioned the scenario of someone staying all day in the building (i.e. a para-legal doing title searches), and suggested adding “short term visitors” to Section 3. Mr. Talley noted Town employees have a right to ask a person to take a dog out. Ms. Webster questioned having an ordinance when there is not a problem with dogs. CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Talley. Discussion ceased. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: one aye, two nays (Mr. Roesler, Mr. Talley); motion did not carry. MOTION by Ms. McKnight to amend the Ordinance for the Care and Control of Animals, with Section 3, 3rd sentence, changed to read “...dog obedience class is necessary as an aid in an education class or if the owner or keeper is a short term visitor and the animal is leased.” DISCUSSION: Mr. Roesler said a definition of “short term” is needed. VOTE: Motion failed due to a lack of a second. MOTION by Ms. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to amend the Ordinance for the Care and Control of Animals, with Section 3, 3rd sentence, changed to read “...dog obedience class, is necessary as an aid in an education class, or if the owner or keeper is a visitor and no one present objects.” VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 11. CONSIDER AMENDING THE PARKING ORDINANCE (First Reading) Mr. Bohne reviewed the amendment to the Parking Ordinance, First Reading, that includes two sets of fines related to fire lanes and fire hydrants. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to approve amending the Parking Ordinance as presented, First Reading, with a revised fine schedule for Section 12 and Section 13 as follows: Section 12, Fire Lane, fourth and subsequent offense - $150.00Section 13, Fire Hydrant, fourth and subsequent offense - $225.00VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 12. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF STORM WATER ORDINANCE (First Reading) Mr. Talley expressed concern about Section 6.2, Water Course definition. Most ditches would qualify as a water course. Mr. Talley said he is not interested in taking over maintenance of the Mack Farm ditch that goes through his property. Mr. Talley said Section 5.1 should include basement sump pumps on the list. Ms. Webster asked if a ditch is in the state or town right-of-way. Mr. Bohne sated the state/town is responsible. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to defer the First Reading regarding consideration of adoption of the Storm Water Ordinance until 07/11/2006. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 13. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN PLANNING AND ZONING FEES MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to approve an increase to the Planning and Zoning fees per the Town of Shelburne Fee Schedule as presented. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 14. CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATH COMMITTEE MOTION BY Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to appoint Steve Antoniozy to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Committee. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 15. CONSIDER GRANTING A LICENSE TO GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER TO LOCATE A POLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF SPEAR STREET NEAR 6356 SPEAR STREET Mr. Bohne explained the request is to locate a power pole in the Town right-of-way to serve the Cedar Ridge development on Bishop Road and Irish Hill Road. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to grant a license to Green Mountain Power to locate a pole on the west side of Spear Street to service 6356 Spear Street. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The Selectboard signed the license documents. 16. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Bohne reported on the following items:
17. MEMBER CONCERNS None. 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION None. 19. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. January 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes February 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes March 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes April 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes May 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes June 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes July 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes August 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes September 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes October 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes November 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes December 2006 Selectboard Meeting Minutes |
|
|
| Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes |
