MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Peter Gibbs, Claude LaPierre, Hilda White, Tucker Holland, Reg Gignoux. (Kay Kraushaar was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Patricia Bezalel, George O’Brien, Kathleen O’Brien, Maureen O’Brien, Susan O’Brien, Josie Leavitt, Cecile Guillemette, Roger Guillemette, Gerald Guillemette, Bernie Guillemette, Joanne Guillemette, Beth Wardwell, Rose Garritano, Norm Burnett, Kary Towne, Dan Coolbeth, Charlie Peet, Ed Fitzpatrick, Michael Anderson, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (6/22/06)

3.      Design Review, Flying Pig Bookstore/Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (DR06-21)

4.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Maureen O’Brien (Trustee of the Helen O’Brien Family Trust) and George O’Brien, 899 Barstow Road (SUB93-3R1)

5.      Preliminary Plan Review, Michael Anderson, d/b/a API Properties, Inc., 61 Pond Road (SUB04-10)

6.      Other Business, Correspondence

7.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Josie Leavitt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Leavitt showed a rendering of the proposed sign, noting the purple lettering will be 10” in size. The decision on the gold leaf background has not been made as yet. The sign will not be illuminated.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/13/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application.  Copies of the revised site plan were given to the Planning Commission along with a narrative describing the changes.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Stout reviewed the changes to the site plan, including shortening of the loop road on the west end of the property (road is now a cul-de-sac), having the last four houses on a common driveway with a “T” turnaround, eliminating the second access road by the pond, having 14 houses rather than 18 houses on the loop road, designating the common land along the loop road to the 14 houses. On the Dorset Street side of the property there are five houses on the ridge at the back edge of the meadow rather than three houses, and the meadow in front will remain and be managed by the owners of the five houses. The larger lots have required open space in the northeast corner. The 20-acre parcel has frontage on Dorset Street and Cheesefactory Road to the cultivated line. In the southwest corner one lot has been eliminated so there will be only one house (one and a half story house set 30’ from the road by the tree line and below the view line). The entire parcel will have restrictions to maintain the land as is (i.e. wooded and open field). The intent is that the open parcels have some ownership associated with them so they are maintained.  Mr. Stout reviewed the open space plan noting open space, buffer areas, and open area on individual lots. The open space will be under restricted deed covenants.

 

Rick Peterson asked about access to the five lots on the west side of Dorset Street. Mr. Stout stated there will be a single curb cut on Cheesefactory Road and a shared driveway.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if there will be two homeowners associations to cover the development on each side of the road. Mr. Stout confirmed there will be two separate associations.

 

There was discussion of possible uses on the larger parcels (ideas include a small scale farm/garden operation).  There was discussion of the buildings envelopes. It was noted on lots #1-#6 and lot #7 the building envelopes will be located within the darkened area shown on the site plan. The building envelopes are designated on lots #12, #13, and #14.  Lot #20 could have multiple buildings (house, stable, and such).  Lot #22 will have restrictions to protect the views and maintain the open land.  Rick Peterson stated the conditions of approval may include stipulations allowing the town to oversee some of the open space issues. There was further discussion of potential agricultural uses on the larger lots and the proximity of adjacent property in South Burlington currently under agricultural use.  George O’Brien mentioned the soil on the south side of the lot is ideal for fruit/vegetable farming on a small scale (hobby farm). The land will attract the buyer, assured Mr. O’Brien.

 

Hilda White asked about the driveway on the southeast lot possibly coming off of Dorset Street. Mr. Stout stated the gradient is steep on the Dorset Street side of the parcel.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the creation of lot #20 and lot #21. Tony Stout explained the lot division is between the natural land and cultivated land. The concern is the natural area with the larger parcel will not be maintained unless there is a residence and the owner is mandated to maintain the space.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/13/06.  Dean Pierce pointed out the site plan submitted by the applicant needs to show the 50’ buffer on all parcels. Regarding the larger lot being used for agricultural purposes, the land to the north in South Burlington is conserved and will remain open, and the land to the south of the O’Brien parcel is owned by the Maille family and is conserved so there is a large block of open land for potential agricultural use.  Mr. Pierce stated the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee is going to submit their comments on the proposal in writing. Some of the concerns include how the land on the east side with agricultural use potential and scenic significance will be conserved, and the overall number of lots meshing with the number of lots in a conventional subdivision.  The applicant will be meeting with the Paths Committee at some point in the process. Dean Pierce asked about the Hollyer septic system across the road. Mr. Stout stated the matter will be fully researched and assured the system will be adequately protected.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Rose Garritano, neighbor, expressed gratitude for the reduction in the number of houses being proposed, but noted the agricultural uses on the larger lot(s) will require outbuildings and there are no height restrictions on these types of buildings. Ms. Garritano suggested the houses on Dorset Street be clustered by the hedgerow across the street, and the houses and outbuildings on the two agricultural lots be located closer to each other so there is more combined open space with the two lots. Ms. Garritano also mentioned concern for water supply/pressure, run off, and preserving the natural resources in the area.

 

Beth Wardwell, neighbor, asked about the access road. Mr. Stout explained there will be fewer points of conflict with one accessway and traffic calming measures can be installed. Maureen O’Brien mentioned the road is designed to serve 14 lots. Governor’s Lane serves 13 lots. The proposed road will be similar, but it will be a private road not a public road. Ms. Wardwell asked for a definition of open space. Mr. Stout stated open space means no houses or commercial buildings. Recreational buildings, farm buildings are open to discussion.  George O’Brien stated his vision of the agricultural use on the larger lot would not require a large barn (i.e. gardening shed perhaps).

 

Charlie Peet, neighbor, testified there is much wildlife in the area. Mr. Stout noted a wetlands specialist and ecologist have been employed to do a preliminary inventory. The animals in the area (deer, turkey, songbirds, amphibians, small mammals) adapt well to development provided there are travel corridors.

 

Patricia Bezalel, neighbor, expressed concern about water supply to the existing and proposed houses. Mr. Stout stated given the density there should be ample aquifer recharge. The well yields in the area are generally good. There are some existing wells that may not be deep enough. The hydrologist will thoroughly investigate the matter. The edge of the water/sewer district is the west side of Spear Street. Shelburne is strictly adhering to their sewer district and capacity.

 

George O’Brien offered anyone to make the comparison of the proposed development to the two closest developments to the north in South Burlington.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application. Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre recused themselves from the Planning Commission.  Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of Chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mike Burke reviewed changes from the original proposal. The wetlands on the property required relocation of the driveway. There is a 60’ right-of-way to the Auclair Family Trust land to the south. The building envelope on lot #4 has been reduced in size. Lots #5 and #6 contain absolute “no cut” zones. There is a 20’ access easement to lot #7 (landlocked) for the benefit of the Town of Shelburne. The size of lot #7 has been increased. Lot #7 is a conserved lot. There have been discussions with UVM regarding potential transfer of ownership. The “farmer’s swamp road” has been discontinued.  The waste water system is shown on the plan (shared community system). The Paige wire fence detail is shown on the plan. The boundary relative to the Guillemette barn is shown on the site plan. The storm water basin and fire pond are shown on the plan. The location of the VAST trail is shown on the plan. The access road will be private, stated Mr. Burke, adding the road is proposed to be a total of 24’ wide (18’ travel way with three foot graveled shoulders on each side), but reducing the shoulders to one foot wide on each side of the 18’ travel way would be adequate to serve the proposed six homes.  The road will be able to handle emergency vehicles.

 

Mr. Burke reviewed the issue of some land being in the Town of St. George. Research has not revealed findings of fact or staff notes on the parcel. Ed Fitzpatrick, attorney for the applicant, stated subdivision approval was received for the lot line along the St. George town boundary (60’ right-of-way accessing the Shelburne property). Dean Pierce noted St. George wanted to know whether their approval was for a driveway to serve a single house in St. George as opposed to a larger or different development.  Ed Fitzpatrick said he will try to secure any minutes or other pertinent documentation on the matter from St. George.

 

Mike Burke stated comments from Jonathan Ashley regarding the design of the storm water system and discharge permit have been reviewed. Technical issues with the storm water and waste disposal systems will be resolved. The easement will provide enough access to the storm water retention pond.  Grading has been addressed. Stabilization notes on the retention pond and fire pond have been provided. The 30’ radius of the cul-de-sac can be verified by the Fire Chief. The disagreement with the comment on the waste water system (i.e. 36” below grade) will be resolved.

 

Hilda White asked what will happen to the conserved land should the homeowners association dissolve. Ed Fitzpatrick stated lot #7 will not be owned by the homeowners association. The association will have control on the conserved/restricted land with a lot as well as the roads, ponds, and community septic system.  Gerry Guillemette, Pond Road resident, interjected there must be agreement by all the members in the association on the maintenance of the road or there will be problems. The regulations need to be specified so there are no misunderstandings.

 

There was discussion of UVM owning the open land with an easement held by a group with ecological interest in the land, such as The Nature Conservancy.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/13/06.  Dean Pierce asked about the retention pond. Mike Burke explained a regular hydrant is shown, but an un-valved hydrant riser would be acceptable as well.

 

Mike Burke asked for clarification of the recreation impact of the development. Dean Pierce stated a letter regarding projected use of recreational resources in the town by the residents of the development can be submitted.

 

Reg Gignoux asked for information on emergency response to the site (by which towns).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gerry Guillemette, Pond Road resident, asked about access to the VAST trail. Mike Burke explained there will be an easement along Pond Road onto the Auclair property and the VAST trail. At this point in time Pond Road has migrated over the 20’ recreation path easement, but the easement can be widened to correction the situation, said Mr. Burke. Mr. Guillemette said he has not witnessed the road migration since living on Pond Road from 1968 to the present. Also, there is an existing hedgerow and Elm tree stumps that have not been impacted by the road all these years.  Mr. Guillemette commented it is ironic the road boundary can be defined now, but could not be defined when their barn burned in 1980.  Gerry Guillemette opined the proposed development does not fit with the area which is agricultural in nature.

 

Bernie Guillemette, Pond Road resident, recalled at the August 25, 2005 meeting there was discussion of the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area. The concern is if the town finds the development to be compatible, but this turns out not to be the case who will pay the ultimate price.  The Town of Shelburne must be willing and able to clean up the mess allowed to happen, stressed Mr. Guillemette.  The situation on Monarch Road was cited where the developer cleared trees and built his house despite the regulations.  Mr. Guillemette requested an extended warranty for a long term fix should there be problems with the development. There have been three going on four generations of farmers on the Guillemette farm in Shelburne, and the family is very concerned about the impact of the proposed development on the farm operation. The new residents could complain about the farm. There is also concern about the destruction of views.  Dean Pierce mentioned the letter from Bob Perry, attorney for the Guillemette family, dated 7/11/06, regarding language to protect agricultural operations in the area, an email from Marion White, Vermont Department of Agricultural, and a letter (response) from Ed Fitzpatrick, dated 7/13/06, relative to conversation with Bob Perry.  Ed Fitzpatrick explained his choice of words (“good agricultural practices” rather than “accepted or best agricultural practices”, and payment of the legal fees of the “substantially prevailing party” rather than specifying the farmer’s attorney fees).  Attorney Fitzpatrick summarized the language essentially says if the (farm) operation is there, it can remain. Rick Peterson clarified the wording “best management practices” and “accepted agricultural practices” relates to water quality, not the operation of farm equipment so the language does not get to the issue of compatibility.  Bernie Guillemette pointed out there is disagreement over terminology even at this stage of the development and potential to find loop holes that could impact the farm operation.  The Guillemette family members have repeatedly expressed concern about the conflict between the farm operation and the residential development, stressed Mr. Guillemette.  Hilda White suggested the Right to Farm document be separate and distinct from the other legal documents, and the Right to Farm document be read and signed by the purchaser at the closing. Ed Fitzpatrick expressed concern about subsequent purchasers reading and signing the document.  Rick Peterson suggested a free standing conveyance of covenant from the client to the Guillemette family regarding the right to farm in perpetuity. The conveyance would benefit the Guillemette land and burden the API land.  Mr. Fitzpatrick agreed to consider the suggestion.

 

Charlie Peet, neighbor, asked about survey points. Mike Burke stated common points were found with the land surveyor’s name on them, but there is another survey which showed the boundary line in a different location.  Mr. Peet asked if there are plans for development of the large lot and extension of the road along the golf course. Dean Pierce pointed out the property is owned by the Auclair Family Trust, not the applicant.

 

There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission. Rick Peterson resumed the duty of Chairman.

 

Letters from Mike Sinoneau and Tom Koerner on the zoning changes were given to the Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the response to David White’s inquiry drafted by Dean Pierce.

 

Dean Pierce will forward a list of ideas for the planning grant.

 

Dean Pierce reported the Selectboard continued the public hearing on the draft Town Plan. Feedback from the Planning Commission is requested on the proposed amendments to the R-PUD regulations and building demolition. Dean Pierce will provide information for consideration.

 

 

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

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Peter Gibbs, Claude LaPierre, Hilda White, Tucker Holland, Reg Gignoux., Kay Kraushaar.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            George O’Brien, Kathleen O’Brien, Maureen O’Brien, Susan O’Brien, Steven Antinozzi, Dick Elkins, Liam Murphy, Matt Odachowski, Steve Clayton, Sara Clayton, Becky Ramsey, Kary Towne, Dorothea Penar, Gail Albert, David Greenberg, David Conard, David Webster, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

Special Meeting: Presentation on Access Management Strategies

1.      Call to Order (regular meeting)

2.      Approval of Minutes (7/13/06)

3.      Design Review, Steve and Sara Clayton/Shelburne Supermarket, 20 Shelburne Shopping Plaza (DR06-22)

4.      Design Review, Michael Liker, 108 Athletic Drive (DR06-23)

5.      Design Review, Kimberly Legg, 34 McCabe Circle (DR06-24)

6.      Design Review, Fernandez, 9 Railroad Lane (DR06-25)

7.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Maureen O’Brien (Trustee of the Helen O’Brien Family Trust) and George O’Brien, 899 Barstow Road (SUB93-3R1)

8.      Discussion of Zoning Change Petitioned by Larry Williams Referred to Planning Commission by Selectboard

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the special meeting to order at 7 p.m. to hear a presentation by representatives from CCRPC and CCMPO on access management strategies. Access management strategies include limiting curb cuts, driveway location and spacing, turning movements, parking, and traffic signals. Access management helps effectively plan development within a town. Benefits include decreasing congestion, increasing safety, shortening travel time, making more attractive roadways, and economic benefits.  The relationship between land use and transportation (future growth impacts) was also discussed. The effort by the state to make permitting a cooperative process between the state and town with regard to state highways in towns was noted. There are various publications on access management available from the state.

 

Chairman Peterson called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

Steve Clayton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Clayton mentioned the plan to build an interior wall in the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/27/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/27/06.  Dean Pierce explained the request by the applicant for corner boards on the single family house. The boards will be painted white.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Matt Odachowski appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Odachowski explained the request for an exterior door through the back of the garage leading to the rear portion of the building. There is a window in place presently.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/27/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. It was noted the exterior changes include siding, windows, doors, and a fence. Chairman Peterson pointed out the Planning Commission just received the staff report and has not had the opportunity to review it.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/27/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Stout addressed the issue of maximum build-out, noting under current zoning regulations 25 units could be built without infringing on the wetlands. The proposal is for 22 units. Regarding the land east of Dorset Street, the O’Brien family would like to maintain views by having productive use of the fields (i.e. so the area does not become woody brush).  The land behind the Wardwell lot is ideal for house sites. The wetlands will provide a buffer between houses. Rick Peterson asked if the maximum build out potential has been calculated for the land. Dean Pierce stated there are areas with development constraint issues (slope, wetlands); the actual build out calculation has not been done for the number of lots on the parcel. Mr. Stout noted the proposed zoning ordinance has language that goes through the calculation for density purposes. The O’Briens are looking at what can be built with respect to the land/views.  There was discussion of the number of acres of wetlands. The raw density per the acreage is 29 units. With 400’ building envelopes, the configuration allows 25 units. Only 22 units are being proposed.  Reg Gignoux stressed the calculation will need to be known. Mr. Stout assured a complete analysis can be done as part of Preliminary Plan submittals.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the plan to keep the open land remaining as such (i.e. without buildings.) It was noted the Milot property in South Burlington is still open to potential development. Mr. Stout said language could be included in the deed (legal conditions) or conditions placed on the permit to ensure positive control on the land. The homeowners association will have limited interest if the common land is detached to their residential space, and there is the issue of who will mow/maintain the area. It is felt the land must be associated with an interested party, such as the individual living next to the open land. It will be required that the land be kept open and maintained.  There was further discussion of the open land and maintaining views. It was suggested a view easement be granted to the homeowners association so before anything happens on the land and the town is notified, the area residents see what is occurring.  Mr. Stout commented the common land west of Dorset Street is valuable agriculturally to whoever owns east of Dorset Street. There are many possibilities for use of the land.  Tucker Holland asked about the current use of the land on proposed lots #20, #21, and #22.  Mr. O’Brien stated the northeast corner on Dorset Street is being tilled by Bernie Guillemette (local farmer).

 

Hilda White mentioned the views and asked about locating the buildings on Lot #20 next to Cheesefactory Road rather than on the South Burlington line. Tony Stout said the proposed building locations were a gut reaction to the views in the area. The buildings could be moved to the north end of the property. The impact of development of the adjoining Milot property in South Burlington on any agricultural use of the land or proposed buildings can only be speculated.  Maureen O’Brien noted on the north end of the property the power transmission line goes across the property in South Burlington.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the driveway to Lot #22 off Cheesefactory Road. Mr. Stout reported the driveway location has been moved to the east between the crop land and meadow.

 

Tucker Holland suggested exploring the idea of combining lots #20 and #21 and locating the house in the northwest corner or if the lots are not combined, moving the house to the southwest corner toward the building site on Lot #21 to lessen visual impact. Claude LaPierre asked about building on the easterly side of Lot #21. Mr. Stout stated the land on Lot #21 goes up steeply and there may be ledge. Also, there is not much room at the top to the property line.  There was further discussion of combining lots #20 and #21. Mr. Stout stated three lots is the density that seems reasonable to the O’Briens for this portion of the property and to ensure the property is maintained (not grown to brush).  Tucker Holland asked about deferring plans for the lot until the farmer currently using the land no longer is doing so. Mr. O’Brien stated there is no financial arrangement or schedule with the farmer, but much appreciation that the land is being worked. Mr. Stout stated the idea is to keep the land as a proposed “farmette” to help maintain agricultural uses in the short term. For the long term, it may be better to locate houses in the other corner of the lot, agreed Mr. Stout. Mr. O’Brien noted the Land Trust is emphasizing economically viable properties and the proposal makes the land more economically viable. Three lots make more sense.  Maureen O’Brien stated several smaller parcels make more sense for different agricultural uses, such as vegetables, a vineyard, or a small gentleman’s farm. Peter Gibbs expressed interest in seeing different views and house placements on the lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/27/06.  Rick Peterson asked about prior approvals on the property. Dean Pierce stated some of the land was subdivided previously.

 

Mr. Pierce mentioned the letter from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee was not received in time to be mailed with the meeting packets.  There was also mention of the idea of affordable housing linked to the agricultural use on the land. Mr. Stout agreed to explore the idea.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, stated the Natural Resources Committee is very willing to work with the O’Briens on the development to help achieve mutual goals. Suggestions from the Natural Resources Committee include alternate uses for the land and working with the Land Trust to find farmers to work the land and keep it open.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Chairman Peterson summarized the Selectboard charged the Planning Commission with addressing the following:

·        Refine the concept of an existing structure being totally razed and “non-contributing structures” (i.e. no historic or other important value with respect to the village setting).

·        If the structure is razed, rebuilding in the existing footprint or larger.

·        Criteria attached by the Planning Commission to allow razing a building.

 

Mr. Peterson mentioned the Shelburne Historic Preservation Committee suggested review of the regulations used in Newton, Massachusetts relative to the same matter.

 

Liam Murphy explained his proposed language for the revision of Section 1640.F relative to R-PUD indicates a building rebuilt in the same footprint is not deemed new construction, but an enlargement would be considered new construction and the 25% limit would apply. Regarding the definition of a “non-contributing” existing structure, the building is not eligible if it is on the national or state register or the town’s design review board finds the building is associated with significant persons, events, architecture, and such.

 

Dorothea Penar, Shelburne Historic Preservation Committee, pointed out there are times when a building is listed as “contributing”, but not all contributing buildings are created equal. Discretion is necessary. A building can be “significant” and “preferably preserved” (i.e. in the public interest to preserve the building).  There was discussion of the 50-year mark for buildings, and outbuildings being included as contributing or being on the national or state register.  There was continued discussion of terminology relative to “contributing” and “non-contributing” buildings. Liam Murphy suggested language be added to the regulations specifying a building can not be razed if it is on the national or state register and determined by the Design Review Board to be historic or important to preserve.

 

After further discussion, the following changes were made to the language of Section 1640.F.1 & 2(a),(b):

·        Strike the word “substantially”.

·        Change “non-contributing existing structure” to “non-significant existing structure”.

·        Change “Design Review Board” to “Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee”.

·        Add the following as a subparagraph to 2(b):

“eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and is determined to be important to preserve.”

 

Typographical errors in the text were noted and will be corrected.

 

 

David Greenberg, attorney representing Sisters and Brothers Investment Group which owns the Red Apple Motel, and David Conard, attorney representing the party interested in the Red Apple property requested amendments to the PUD regulations be moved forward. Chairman Peterson explained the Planning Commission took action on a petition by the voters relative to amendments to the R-PUD. The Planning Commission and Selectboard are in the process of updating the town plan and then will address proposed zoning changes. There was mention of separating controversial items from non-controversial items. Rick Peterson suggested the ‘housekeeping’ and non-controversial items could be handled to bring the zoning regulations into conformity with state law, then the Commission could concentrate on items that received public comment, such as the 200’ setback from the lake, 10-acre zoning in the Rural district, and the Mixed Use district. The Planning Commission will further discuss the matter at the 8/10/06 meeting.

 

The Planning Commission received copies of letters from individuals with comment on the zoning changes.

 

Dean Pierce explained Randy Rowland was waiting for the survey of his property to be complete in order to execute the boundary line adjustment (minor subdivision), and as a result, the deadline was missed by two weeks. The Planning Commission has the authority to waive the deadline so the application can be warned for final review.

 

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.