MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Talley, Vice Chairperson; Jane McKnight and Bob Roesler

ADMINISTRATION:     Paul Bohne, Town Manager and Peter Frankenburg, Finance Director

 

1.    CALL TO ORDER

Jim Talley, Vice Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.

 

Mr. Bohne requested that Errors and Omissions be added as item 3A.

 

There was none.

 

Mr. Bohne explained that Act 75 of the 2005 Legislature prescribed the methodology for assessing the valuation of certain affordable housing projects. The Act went into effect for the 2006 Grand List but was not picked up by the Assessor’s office until after the Grand List was lodged. Therefore, the Selectboard was requested to change the municipal assessment of The Shelburne Housing LTD Partnership from $1,564,300 to $996,900 and the education assessment from $1,401,156 to $902,195.

 

Ms. McKnight expressed concern regarding the long term tax implications for the Town and future affordable housing projects.

 

Mr. Bohne acknowledged the concern and stated that the non profit affordable housing industry was concerned about the future of developing affordable housing when communities may resist housing projects due to the potential burden on the services not supported by property taxes. He felt that in concert with the League of Cities and Towns, there would be an effort to revisit this issue.

 

Mr. Frankenburg presented a worksheet that set out how the tax rate was calculated.

Page 2 – Shelburne Selectboard – 7/6/06

The meeting adjourned at 8:20 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by Paul Bohne, Recording Secretary, Pro-tem.

 

Accepted

 

 

Chris Neme, Chairperson

 

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

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Dean Pierce, Town Planner; Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dorothea Penar, Liam Murphy, Fritz Horton, Dick Elkins, David Webster, Rick Peterson, Jeff Jackson, Bob Bristow, Willard Jackson, Larry Williams, Tom Koerner, Gwen Webster, Robin Jeffers, Barbara Hamblett, David White, Linda Lavellette, Karen Stackpole, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press), and others.

 

The Board convened Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to discussion legal matters.

 

 

Mr. Neme, Chairperson, called the regular meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.

 

Agenda item #7 (storm water ordinance) tabled until next meeting of the Board.

 

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point resident, commented on the proposed draft Town Plan language related to changes in the Lakeshore Overlay district.

 

Dick Elkins stated a sign advertising painting services was displayed on the church lawn on the corner of Church Street and Route 7 and the sign should be removed. Mr. Bohne said staff will investigate the matter.

 

Mr. Bohne reviewed the proposed amendment to the R-PUD section of the zoning bylaws. Developers of the Shelburne Inn property petitioned the Town for changes to the Town Plan language to allow the existing motel structure to be demolished. Jane McKnight expressed concern about re-defining structures in Section 1640.F, Redevelopment of a PUD, Subdivision (a), which defines existing structures differently. It would be helpful to flesh out the language, suggested Ms. McKnight, for example: “…a structure can be razed if the Planning Commission determines that the building has no inherent architectural or historical value.” The bylaws should set forth some benchmarks that will treat structures all the same under the same criteria. Some consideration should be given to the replacement of a structure.

 

Larry Williams, developer of the Shelburne Inn property, said the Planning Commission and Zoning Board reviewed an application for approval to raze and replace the existing motel building on the existing motel footprint versus a renovation. Both boards were supportive of the overall project, but could not grant approval under existing zoning conditions. The Planning Commission had some of the same concerns expressed by Ms. McKnight. Issues included problems with razing a building in the (Village) Overlay district, and replacement of the structure on the same footprint with the setback standards in the current zoning regulations. There are differences in side yard setbacks for existing structures (20’ and 7.5’) in a redevelopment PUD with caveats on building height.   There was further discussion of the language submitted by the Redstone Group (responsible for the redevelopment of the Shelburne Inn property). Liam Murphy, attorney for Redstone, noted the draft language was submitted 4/18/06, and if there are changes, then the entire process must be repeated which would encompass three or four more months of time. The petition seeks an amendment to existing zoning. The concern expressed by Ms. McKnight regarding criteria is inherent to the system and enables an applicant to submit a new plan which invokes the approval process with Design Review Committee, Planning Commission review, Zoning Board review. Mr. Neme suggested leaving the language as is except adding the words “…provided that…”.  There was discussion of language in Chapter 117 related to substantive changes to proposed language (which would send the draft back to the Planning Commission for review and approval), a one-year time frame for filing a challenge on proposed language, Selectboard concerns about zoning bylaws being changed for one particular project (the board wants to be accommodating, but does not want to rush a decision), continuing the public hearing to allow for adequate review of the proposed language, and possibly adding the following language: “…that is noncontributing to a historic district” (a noncontributing structure can be razed, but not a contributing structure).

 

Gwen Webster, Zoning Board member and Shelburne resident, pointed out the new setback of 7.5’ for existing buildings does not include new construction in a redevelopment PUD. The zoning does not apply just to the piece of property under discussion, but for all properties in the historic village core. Mr. Williams interjected the setbacks are already established. Mr. Talley expressed concern about the language creating a loophole. The language redefines new construction. Mr. Talley suggested wording in 2.b include “…except replacement, or reconstruction, in the existing footprint shall not…”. Mr. Williams stated R-PUD language allows the footprint to expand by 25% without qualifying as new construction. There is flexibility to expand. The Town Planner, Dean Pierce, read the proposed zoning section related to new construction. There was further discussion of the possible loophole that would allow a developer to raze an historic building. Anything outside of an existing footprint should be considered new construction, stated Mr. Talley. Mr. Murphy clarified the Redstone petition crafted new language that would allow the developer to tear down the motel building and replace the building within the same footprint plus a new portion.  Ms. McKnight suggested added language saying: “…for purposes of setbacks, but not for expansion of the footprint.”  Mr. Neme suggested language saying: “…allowed to tear down and replace with new non-contributing square footage, but cannot increase area of the footprint, and cannot decrease setbacks.” Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Talley that anything within the footprint was not new construction and anything outside the footprint was new construction. With the motel building, physically the new building could not be located any closer to the boundary.

 

Dorothea Penar, Design Review Committee member, expressed concern the proposed language will encourage demolition of historic buildings within the Village. There is an open-endedness to the proposed language. There should be conditions to protect the National Historic district, and a system in place on the Design Review and Planning Commission levels to say “no” to demolition. The Design Review Committee needs tools to defend the Town’s position. The Town has not listed contributing or non-contributing structures in the historic district. The same criteria used by the National Register of Historic Places could be used to judge if a structure is contributing or non-contributing, suggested Ms. Penar.

 

Mr. Pierce noted a developer can only build what is approved (by the Planning Commission). Also, any changes to the proposed draft language must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Suggested changes include:

·        In Section 2.a - add: “…that is a non-contributing structure, provided that such building meets criteria.”

·        In Section 2.b - add: “…within the existing footprint.”

 

The Selectboard will forward comments/questions to the Planning Commission.

 

MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to continue the public hearing on amendment of the Redevelopment Section of the Town of Shelburne Zoning Bylaws associated with the Shelburne Inn redevelopment as presented by petition, and that the Planning Commission will re-examine language consistent with the 07/11/2006 Selectboard meeting discussion for review and comment. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

Willard Jackson, Shelburne Point owner, reported the Shelburne Point subdivision application received Preliminary Plat approval. Mr. Jackson read a written statement, dated 07/11/2006, regarding proposed revisions to the Town Plan that would result in changes to the Lakeshore Overlay district setback from 100’ to 200’ and the septic setback from 75’ to 150’. The language changes if enacted would require a complete re-engineering of the Shelburne Point subdivision site plan and increase the five acre lots to ten acres each. Mr. Jackson suggested the Town purchase the open space that everyone can enjoy.

 

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point resident, observed the zoning regulations and the Town Plan are inter-related and should parallel each other. If the 200’ setback language is adopted in the Town Plan there will be a negative impact on nearly every lake shore property (making them non-conforming).

 

Mr. Neme asked for clarification as to whether the Planning Commission was redefining Shelburne Point and where setbacks are measured from the lakeshore.

 

David White, Jackson family development consultant, reviewed his qualifications related to working in the development arena in Vermont. Mr. White stated a town plan is the basis for zoning ordinances and regulations, but the town plan is not a regulatory document. Increasingly, however, regulations are indicating an application must also comply with the town plan. Mr. White reviewed language in Shelburne’s draft Town Plan including Page 19, Land Use, #7, “maximum extent”, the first bulleted item (Page 19), and paragraph 12 (Page 24), Use of Maps, language saying “adverse” versus “some adverse”. “Some adverse” would give flexibility, noted Mr. White. There was discussion of standards or specific criteria that should be in zoning or subdivision regulations, general goals that should be set forth in the Town Plan (Mr. White felt absolute blanket statement should not be in a town plan), and the proposed setback change to the Lake Shore Overlay district. Copies of the Shelburne Point subdivision site plan were provided to the Selectboard. The following were reviewed:

 

Mr. Neme asked about the impact of the proposed changes to the Town Plan and zoning regulations on the application which is in the middle of the review process. Mr. White replied there is legal precedence (Tafts Corners in Williston) that indicates unless there is an application, a developer is not legally vested in the process. Subdivision regulations require an application to comply with zoning regulations. There was further discussion of the impact on the Jackson application by the adoption of the Town Plan. Rick Peterson, Chairman of the Shelburne Planning Commission, explained the intent (with the Jackson application) is to approve what was presented. The Planning Commission will attach any clarity with regard to final approval of the application. Vested/grandfathering rights are not an issue. The Town Plan update comes first and zoning follows. There has been lengthy discussion (with the Jackson’s) and the town asked for scientific evidence regarding erosion issues, stated Mr. Peterson, pointing out the concern has not simply been about views. The Planning Commission will revisit the 200’ setback issue

 

David White expressed concern about changing the zoning from 5 acres to 10 acres which would ‘chop up’ the open land in a different way and make it more expensive versus affordable. Mr. Neme stated a town goal is to discourage development in the rural zones.

 

Brian Precourt, Shelburne resident, stated many people will be negatively impacted by the proposed setback changes because their lots will become non-conforming,  The ZBA holds close to five criteria in considering applications, and there are not many applications that could meet the criteria, stated Mr. Precourt. Mr. Neme reviewed a number of opportunities that the public had available to make comments up to this point in the process. There would be at least one more public hearing.

 

The Board discussed proposed housing target number (Page 41, Volume I, Housing). The Planning Commission will investigate whether population figures support housing targets per Section 3. There was discussion of recommended action (Page 42) related to building codes/building inspection requirements and when codes and/or inspections become a requirement. Affordable housing numbers and how the numbers will impact the tax base will be reviewed. Median income percentages relative to affordable housing are a concern (consider 20 percent versus 10 percent). Dick Elkins, resident, asked if town taxpayers subsidize affordable housing, noting people in affordable housing must continue to receive a subsidy to cover on-going expenses and upkeep. Mr. Bohne explained that within the affordable housing agreements there are restrictions/covenants on the resale value of the units that freeze the property appreciation.

 

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

Mr. Bohne briefly reviewed the proposed amendment to the Shelburne Parking Ordinance, Section 12 and 13. There were no questions/comments.

 

 

The Selectboard signed the Parking Ordinance document.

 

7.         CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A STORM WATER ORDINANCE (First Reading)

Tabled until the next meeting of the Board.

 

Mr. Bohne stated the Selectboard did a site visit to the town owned land.  Ms. McKnight noted the dense growth, mature trees, and underbrush made it impossible to walk the property. Ms. McKnight read a portion of Planning Commission minutes indicating the Town wanted the parcel for a neighborhood park. Mr. Talley expressed concern about setting a precedent with selling Town owned land. Mr. Neme noted the Town has taken formal action to accept the deed.

 

Brian Precourt, resident, expressed agreement with the concern about selling town owned land, recalling the town wanted the developer to provide the land for recreational purposes. The lot was a hay field at the time. There is question as to who receives the payment for the property (the town or the developer), and who should be maintaining the lot.

 

Ms. McKnight observed neighborhood children use the lot as a pass-through to Bay Road. The Town should clean up the lot and make it a park. Access to Bay Road is important to the back part of the lot.

 

Kerin Stackpole, abutting landowner, stated there is a path through the lot. The Town might consider granting the two landowners an easement or a small strip of the lot, but the lot should not be sold outright. The land is a wildlife corridor and open space for the neighborhood. Also, there is a structure on the Town land at the top of the existing driveway.

 

Linda Lavellette, neighbor, said she would like a buffer left between Bayview and Bay Road. The Morrill’s maintained the lot as lawn for 30 years and it looks like it belongs to the abutting landowner. Ms. McKnight said the abutting landowner cannot claim the lot by adverse possession. Mr. Bohne explained a municipality cannot lose land by adverse possession. Ms. Lavellette reviewed a brief history of the Mayford and John Morrill property purchased from Andy and Edith Morrill. According to Edith Morrill the subject parcel was purchased from an aunt and uncle, and later a second parcel in the back was purchased. The deed was never recorded. Two sheds were built on the back parcel. When the property was to be sold it was discovered the additional 30’ parcel was separate.

 

Mr. Michaels, abutting landowner, said his gravel driveway erodes into Bay Road whenever it rains. The property boundary is on a portion of the driveway. The plan is to pave the 20’-30’ base of the driveway, but not the portion on town land. About 20’ of the top corner of the driveway is on town land. Scott Taylor has confirmed the accuracy of the lot pins.

 

Robin Jeffers stated Mr. Michaels’ driveway is 20’x 5’, and if the Town gives an easement to the Michaels at the top of the lot, then an easement at the bottom of the lot needs to be given (to the Jeffers). Ms. Jeffers asked the Town to consider a site visit to the lot and continuing the discussion to a later date.

There was agreement measurement of the Michaels’ driveway is needed and utilities on the Town lot need to be located. The Board scheduled a site visit on 7/25/06 at 6 p.m.

 

There was discussion of the Smart Mobility traffic analysis of the intersection. Mr. Bohne reported the Town is working with the school to decrease peak hour demands at the school and on a ‘Safe Routes To School’ program. Parents, school administration, and teachers are exploring options to reduce the number of students dropped off at the school door by parents (such as bus routes to encourage ridership). There was discussion of sidewalks and pedestrian traffic light installations, identifying parent drop-off points for children to walk to school, the potential for split phasing of traffic lights at Falls Road/Harbor Road/Route 7 within the next two years, and creating a left turn lane to increase traffic efficiency. The traffic report projects traffic data out 5 years and provides information on a roundabout.

 

Mr. Neme asked if parking by the Clayton building will be lost if a left turn lane on Harbor Road is created. Mr. Bohne confirmed this and added the Town should investigate public/private partnerships to create municipal parking.

 

Ms. McKnight commented that widening the intersection in the village will impact the village setting. Mr. Bohne assured the road widening will only be contemplated if traffic cannot be managed at the intersection. The road has the equivalent of 2.5 lanes now and will need another 0.5 lanes. The Clayton building will still lose parking. Public Works Director, Bernie Gagnon, stated as the town grows the intersection will get worse. A proactive approach is needed. Mid-level solutions will be needed if parents will not cooperate with regard to drop-off points. It is necessary to get Shelburne’s programming and design into the CCMPO TIP, which is a 5-7 year process.

 

Mr. Neme pointed out school enrollment is down.  The Town should take a careful approach regarding left hand turn recommendations. Analysis and data collection are needed until other Demand Management Solutions have been tested. Projects in town that will increase traffic were mentioned (Shelburne Inn with businesses and condos, 60+ units at Shelburnewood, 68 units at the O’Brien development, 25-uints at the Irish Hill Road southeast corner). Mr. Neme suggested inviting business owners to discuss parking solutions.

 

The Selectboard expressed overall support for the Demand Management Solutions for the intersection and to move forward. Staff will stay in contact with the school administration regarding student drop off issues.

  

Tabled until the next meeting of the Board.

 

None.

 

Mr. Talley asked for an update on the Hullcrest Storm Water Management project. Mr. Bohne explained progress at the site with up to three weeks of work remaining.

 

Mr. Talley reported a suspected arson fire at the Shelburne Community School last Thursday is under investigation. The Shelburne Police are seeking any information.

 

Ms. McKnight asked if e-mails are received on the Town blog site. Mr. Bohne said that there were no emails and that a blog site is being designed for the town. Townspeople are urged to use e-mail to contact Town staff or board members on any topics discussed during Selectboard meetings. If possible, Channel 15 will add a trailer or crawl line as part of the program introduction.

 

Ms. McKnight reported complaints were received regarding noise from the recent Shelburne Museum concert.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. and the Selectboard entered Executive Session.

 

 

Accepted,

  

For the Selectboard

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Neme, Chair; Jim Talley; Jane McKnight; Chris Boyd; Bob Roesler  

                                        

ADMINISTRATION:     Paul Bohne, Town Manager

 

1.    CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Neme, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m.

 

There were no changes.

 

There was none.

 

MOTION by Ms. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Talley, to go into executive session.  VOTE:  Unanimous (5 – 0); motion carried.

 

 

MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to adjourn the meeting.  VOTE:  Unanimous (5 – 0); motion carried.

 

The meeting adjourned t 8:20 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by Paul W Bohne III

 

 

Approved,

 

 

For the Selectboard