    |
  |
        |
|
|
Selectboard Meeting MinutesMINUTES SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY THE SHELBURNE SELECTBOARD. CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD.
SELECTBOARDMINUTES OF MEETINGFEBRUARY 13, 2007 2ND DRAFT 3/9/07 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Neme, Chairperson; Jim Talley, Jane McKnight, Chris Boyd, Robert Roesler. ADMINISTRATION: Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer. OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick O’Brien, Kay Kraushaar, Hilda White, Gail Albert, Gwen Webster, Chris Preston (Shelburne News). 6:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Personnel Matters 1. CALL TO ORDER (regular meeting) Mr. Neme, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:26 p.m. 2. CHANGES TO AGENDA Agenda Item #6: Deferred to the next meeting of the Selectboard. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None. 4. CONSIDER APPROVING LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR RIVERCREST (FOREST PARK REALTY) AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THOMPSON ROAD/IRISH HILL ROAD Mr. Bohne reviewed the condition of approval stipulated by the Planning Commission for the Rivercrest (Forest Park Realty) development. The approval is subject to Selectboard approval of the Thompson Road/Falls Road open space covenants. Patrick O’Brien, Forest Park Realty, briefly reviewed the 68-unit development consisting of 27 single family units and 41 condominium units. There will be 23.4 acres transferred to the Town (recorded in the Warranty Deed). Restrictions are outlined in Exhibit A. The Town will not need prior approval from the proposed homeowners association to use the land for a playing field. Mr. O’Brien pointed out ingress/egress on Lot 1. The circle will be paved, but access between units will not be paved. Section #9 includes potential farm activity (there are agricultural soils on the site). Section #3 outlines the tree cutting clause (no cutting except for dead or dying trees). No farming activity will take place in wooded areas. The proposed Forest Management Plan indicates the location of stands of trees. The plan is not a tree inventory, but rather a tree “stand” analysis (i.e. type of trees within an identified area). Currently, there is a footpath/trail from the Gardenside development through the existing forest. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to approve the legal document(s) for Rivercrest (Forest Park Realty) as part of the development on Thompson Road and Irish Hill Road. VOTE: 4 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Boyd); motion carried. 5. CONSIDER RESOLUTION CREATING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (DRB) Mr. Bohne recalled the option of creating a Development Review Board (DRB) has been a discussion item for several years. Two workshops have been held on the topic. The Board received a sample resolution to create a DRB. If a DRB is created, the Zoning Board will be eliminated. The current Zoning Board would complete review of any applications presently under review. The Planning Commission would also complete any current applications. The newly created DRB would begin review of any new applications. With a DRB in place, the focus of the Planning Commission would be on planning functions, such as updating the Town Plan, Zoning Bylaws, and Subdivision Regulations. The DRB would consist of five members with the optional appointment by the Selectboard of alternate members to ensure a quorum. There is the potential to hold DRB hearings on the record. Any appeal of a DRB decision would be based on the premise that a hearing was held. It is difficult to create a record that is complete/clear enough to be accepted in court, and staff recommended not to use the “on the record” procedure at this time. Mr. Neme noted past discussion of a DRB indicated the hearings would be ‘de novo’. Gail Albert asked for clarification between the term ‘de novo’ and the current process. Mr. Roesler explained the DRB would assume Zoning Board functions and the development and design review role of the Planning Commission. Having a DRB will likely reduce the amount of meeting time by the Planning Commission by removing subdivision review from the charge of the Planning Commission. Ms. Albert asked about interfacing by the Natural Resources and Conservation Commission with the DRB on issues of planning and subdivision approval. Mr. Neme replied input on subdivision or design issues would be handled by the DRB. Matters involving the Town Plan would be handled by the Planning Commission. Input by committees would be to both bodies. Gwen Webster, Zoning Board member, opined if the formation of a DRB is solely driven by the burden on the Planning Commission, there is question as to the need for a change from the present situation since there may be ways to mitigate the burden by moving the sketch plan review process to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board is unanimously opposed to the proposed change, stated Ms. Webster. Larger towns such as South Burlington and Burlington have development review boards, but Shelburne is not large enough to warrant a DRB. The Zoning Board/Planning Commission division of review and approval provides checks and balances throughout the process. Nothing falls through the cracks. The chairperson of the South Burlington DRB has admitted on occasion some issues/items have fallen through the cracks. Ms. McKnight asked why the Zoning Board is opposed to a DRB. Ms. Webster explained the Zoning Board goes through the minutia of the bylaws and is very precise about the way an application is approached. Mr. Roesler stated he is conversant with Chapter 117 and it may not be possible to transfer sketch plan review duties from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Board. Ms. Webster stressed there may be a way to achieve this. It was noted there have been changes to the sketch plan review process which impact the next step of review. Ms. Webster referred to a comment by Steve Waltien, Zoning Board member, “if it’s not broken, then why fix it” stated at one of the informational meetings on creating a DRB. The Planning Commission worked hard on the Town Plan update, and will do the Zoning Bylaws next. It appears the change to a DRB is streamlining the process for developers to create a “one-stop shopping” arrangement. Mr. Neme questioned the argument of “big town versus small town” relative to creating a DRB, and noted the VLCT is not aware of any town with a DRB returning to a Zoning Board/Planning Commission configuration. Ms. Webster stated the Planning Commission is more subjective in the rules/regulations. The Zoning Board knows the bylaws inside and out, and is concerned a DRB will not be up to speed. Mr. Neme asked if the concern is the DRB work load would necessitate less attention to detail. Ms. Webster confirmed this. Mr. Roesler asked if the DRB process will make it easier for a developer. Ms. Webster said it would create a “one-stop shopping” situation. Conditional use and variance application review by the Zoning Board was explained. Ms. Webster noted a board member may “catch” something that was missed or needs correction. Mr. Roesler observed the members on a DRB could so the same. Ms. Webster agreed, but expressed concern there would be so much to absorb the details could be missed. There was further discussion of the work load on a board and frequency of meetings. Hilda White, Planning Commission member, expressed concern there would be a disconnection in continuity in the process with the creation of a DRB separate from the Planning Commission. Having some Planning Commission members serve on the DRB may help in the short term, however, there is the risk of “burn out” and losing the experience of long term members on the Planning Commission. Separating the two boards would not be good in the long term. The Planning Commission would not have an understanding of what is going on in town if the focus is only on the “vision”. The Planning Commission is flexible and does get things done. For example, the Shelburne Point application was handled in a reasonable fashion. It is doubtful a DRB would have handled such an application more expediently. Also, townspeople do not want rapid expansion in town. Kay Kraushaar, Planning Commission member, concurred with the comments by Hilda White, and suggested getting feedback from towns that have disbanded their DRB and reverted to the Zoning Board/Planning Commission arrangement. Mr. Neme stated volunteers serving on boards in Shelburne are very conscientious to ensure all the details are covered. One potential downside of having a DRB is the disconnect in writing a Town Plan revision and practical experience. There is also concern about burn out of members and too much growth too soon. Mr. Boyd added another detriment is getting the DRB up to speed. Mr. Boyd suggested the one year appointment on the DRB be a Planning Commissioner. Gail Albert noted often a developer meets with the Natural Resources and Conservation Commission late in the process and feedback is not given to the Planning Commission in a timely manner. It may be more efficient for the developers to meet with the Natural Resources and Conservation Commission prior to site plan review before the Planning Commission. The sequence of review could be an item of discussion with the DRB. Ms. Albert also suggested a questionnaire be created to help outline some of the issues and burdens facing the Planning Commission. Mr. Roesler asked Ms. Webster, Ms. White, and Ms. Kraushaar if they would consider serving on the DRB should one be created. 6. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Deferred until the next meeting of the Selectboard. 7. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to appoint Ron Bouchard to a three-year term as Shelburne’s representative to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 8. CONSIDER SIGNING THE ANNUAL AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION CERTIFICATE OF MILEAGE Mr. Bohne noted a total of 56.28 town miles was submitted to the State of Vermont. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve the annual Agency of Transportation Certificate of Highway Mileage, dated 02/10/2007, as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The Selectboard signed the Certificate of Highway Mileage. 9. CONSIDER APPROVING SEWER ALLOCATION OF 420 GALLONS PER DAY FOR WILLIAM POSEY FOR A RESIDENCE ON MT. PHILO ROAD MOTION by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to approve the sewer allocation request of 420 gpd by William Posey for a residence located at 250 and 252 Mt Philo Road. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 10. CONSIDER APPLYING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TO ASSESS THE CONDITION OF THE HARBOR ROAD STONE ARCH BRIDGE Mr. Bohne stated an accident in 2002 damaged the Harbor Road stone arch bridge (located past Davis Park). The CCMPO will pay for a technical assessment of the bridge. The work is expected to be done by Dubois & King at a cost of $2,950 MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve an application to receive technical assistance from the Metropolitan Planning Organization to assess the condition of the Harbor Road stone arch bridge. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to approve the 1/23/07 minutes with corrections/additions as follows: Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - add “Mr. Neme noted that in the past the EPA has ordered changes in the use of chemicals only to sometimes find that the use of the new chemical is more environmentally problematic; for example, MTBE in gasoline.”; Page 4, Item #6, 1st paragraph, last sentence - change to read: “Ms. McKnight suggested making the language in Article VIII consistent.” VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 12. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Bohne reviewed the following items:
13. MEMBER CONCERNS None. 14. ADJOURNMENT and EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to adjourn the regular meeting and enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, and to invite the Town Manager to attend. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The regular meeting was adjourned and Executive Session convened at 8:50 p.m. 15. FINAL ADJOURNMENT The Board came out of Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. MOTION by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. Accepted, For the Shelburne Selectboard
SELECTBOARDMINUTES OF MEETINGFEBRUARY 27, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Neme, Chairperson; Jim Talley, Chris Boyd, Robert Roesler. (Absent: Jane McKnight) ADMINISTRATION: Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer, Dean Pierce Planning Director, Colleen Haag Town Clerk & Treasurer OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Reid, Lela McCaffrey, Paul Potter, Richard Elkins, Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, John Holt, Gwen Webster, Chris Preston (Shelburne News). 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Neme, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. CHANGES TO AGENDA Additions: Agenda Item 9.b) Approve Liquor Licenses; Agenda Item 9.c) Execute a Stipulation Agreement for Re-determination of Shelburne’s Equalized Education Property Value, and Authorize the Selectboard Chair to Sign the Agreement. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Richard Reid re: Stone Arch Bridge Richard Reid, resident, read a written statement regarding the proposal to repair the Stone Arch Bridge on Harbor Road, and asked that his remarks be made a part of the record verbatim. Mr. Reid provided copies of the 1985/1995 State of Vermont Historic Sites and Structures Survey and a color photograph of the brick arch bridge for Board review. Mr. Reid noted that the bridge, ca.1918, was about 89 years old and had three courses of bricks in the arch. Many of the bricks have fallen out of the arch. There is a 24,000 pound legal load limit posted on the bridge. The Town should have an immediate assessment of the applicable load limits and levy fines if the loads exceed the posted weight limits. Furthermore, the culvert is undersized and cannot handle storm events. McCabe’s Brook overruns the culvert and floods the roadway, stated Mr. Reid. Mr. Neme said the Board will request that the Public Works Director look at the culvert. Mr. Reid commented that the Selectboard minutes of 2/13/07 do not reflect verbatim the motion made by Robert Roesler regarding the proposed study of the condition of the bridge. Mr. Reid said he had reviewed the video tape of the meeting. Richard Elkins asked if the Town archived the Channel 17 video tapes of meetings, and if the video is the public record. Brad Ingalls, VCAM Channel 17 technician, explained video tapes are held by VCAM for six months and then recycled. Mr. Talley noted the video tape is not considered the public record; the written minutes are the public record. Mr. Reid stated a motion that is made and voted is a different matter. There is a discrepancy in the minutes. Mr. Reid read the transcript he made of the motion at the 2/13/07 Selectboard meeting regarding the stone arch bridge. 4. CONSIDER THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 GENERAL FUND AUDIT REPORT FROM FOTHERGILL, SEGALE, AND VALLEY, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Mr. Frankenburg introduced Lela McCaffrey with Fothergill, Segal, and Valley. Ms. McCaffrey reviewed the Independent Auditor’s Report which noted that the Town has received an unqualified opinion. Exhibit C, Balance Sheet, the Sewer/Water Fund, and the Management Letter were also reviewed. It was recommended that the Town draft and adopt a Fraud Policy and consolidate some of the cash and investment accounts. Colleen Haag, Town Clerk stated some of the smaller funds have been consolidated into one fund. Staff is working toward consolidating some of the cash funds into a larger fund. Staff also agrees with the recommendation of developing a fraud policy. Mr. Neme noted that approximately 1/3 of last year’s surplus will be applied to reduce the municipal tax rate for the coming fiscal year. MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to accept the FY05-06 Audit Report from Fothergill, Segale and Valley, CPA’s as presented. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 5. CONSIDER RESOLUTION CREATING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Mr. Roesler made a motion to approve the resolution establishing a Development Review Board (DRB) for the Town of Shelburne with due respect for the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission. There was no second to the motion. There was lengthy discussion regarding the current subdivision process and the section of the resolution that would have at least one Planning Commission member on the DRB to ensure communication between both boards. Mr. Talley reported he had a discussion with one of Colchester’s DRB members. Mr. Boyd said he had discussions with architects who expressed positive reasons for having a DRB. Reg Gignoux, Planning Commission member, spoke in favor of a DRB conceptually, but questioned the timing of changing to a DRB at this time. The new Town Plan has just been adopted and the Planning Commission needs to start a rewrite of the zoning regulations. Feedback from the Zoning Board is needed for the rewrite of the regulations. Mr. Neme asked about the timeline of the zoning rewrite. Mr. Gignoux replied ideally the Planning Commission would like to have the work complete by summer. There are some particularly challenging issues which the Planning Commission is attempting to address. One such issue is at the north end of town along Route 7. Dean Pierce, Town Planner, noted staff has spent some time researching alternatives to the current Route 7 setback requirements. Richard Elkins expressed opposition to changing the existing system to a DRB, noting presently there are two independent bodies to oversee the process. The public is better protected when more people are involved in decision making. Mr. Elkins acknowledged the Planning Commission spends lots of time with subdivision reviews and planning. Perhaps the Planning Commission could schedule one meeting per month exclusively as a planning session. Regarding the comments from architects, it is understandable they would support a one-stop shopping review, stated Mr. Elkins. Mr. Elkins felt Shelburne should not emulate South Burlington, and asked that if the Board proceeds with the DRB idea that the decision be put to a vote by the townspeople. Most of the people in town are not aware of the impending major decision involving the establishment of a DRB, stated Mr. Elkins. Mr. Neme clarified for the record that he has not heard from the public, architects, or anyone. As a former Planning Commission member, continued Mr. Neme, the issue is work load on the Commission to review subdivision applications and do planning as well. The Planning Commissioners do heroic work of which the majority of the citizens in town are not aware. South Burlington has requested the involvement of Shelburne’s Planning Commission in some of their development review processes, but because of the work load on the Shelburne’s Planning Commission this has not been possible. Mr. Elkins expressed appreciation for the time spent by Planning Commissioners, and suggested it may be good to change the functions or make the change incrementally. Gwen Webster, Zoning Board member, stated review of site plans is subjective work. The Zoning Board follows a set of rules completely different from how the Planning Commission operates. Ms. Webster suggested the selectboard meet with the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission to discuss the matter. Ms. Webster expressed agreement with comments that Shelburne is too small a town to emulate South Burlington, Colchester, or Burlington. Mr. Boyd pointed out there are a number of small towns, such as Berkshire, that utilize a DRB, and it may be an indication that something is a miss when town boards cannot keep up with the work load. Dick Elkins expressed concern a DRB might make it easier to do spot zoning. Mr. Roesler suggested people read Chapter 117 and Title 24 regarding specific board duties. Boards cannot deviate from the rules. Planning functions cannot be assigned to a Zoning Board. Mr. Elkins said he was simply suggesting input be gathered. The concern is reduction in the size of the reviewing board, making one decision making board (DRB) and changing the second board (Planning Commission) from an active function to a passive function. It will be difficult to write regulations when the board is not actively involved in the implementation of the rules. Mr. Roesler noted the resolution indicates a five member DRB, but it may be better to have seven or nine members. Reg Gignoux pointed out every Planning Commission member does not attend every meeting. Members are volunteers and have concerns about their day jobs. Mr. Talley stated the member of the Colchester DRB he spoke to indicated the Colchester DRB and Planning Commission are required to hold two joint meetings each year. The Planning and Zoning Office acts as a conduit for the two boards. Ms. Webster inquired as to why the Town was streamlining the process for developers. Mr. Neme replied the intent is to free the Planning Commission to do the kind of town planning that needs to be done. One potential drawback to having a DRB is the loss of connectivity between the body writing the plan and those doing the review. Mr. Neme stated he is leaning in favor of a DRB. The planning function is important because it establishes the rules under which the work can take place. Ms. Webster stated the disconnect would be the lack of Planning Commissioners serving on the DRB. John Holt, Zoning Board member, expressed concern that a DRB would be presented with a complex proposal and if the application included a Planned Residential Development the applicant would want to have a complete response. With the reduction in the number of board members, the process could get sloppier. Reg Gignoux stated concerns related to checks and balances can be easily addressed, but the regulations are only as good as the regulations crafted. The DRB would have greater powers over broader areas than the current Zoning Board. Perceived benefits of the change are unclear, noted Mr. Gignoux. Mr. Neme stated the ability to have greater weight under Act 250 is one benefit. A speaker commented on the degree to which the review process might be made more formal under a DRB, particularly if the DRB follows the Municipal Administrative Procedures Act, (“MAPA”). Dean Pierce noted that under MAPA all hearings must be on the record. A judge will rely on the record in court if there is an appeal. Mr. Talley said he did not think DRB meetings will be “on the record”. Mr. Neme stated a number of towns began “on the record” and have gone “off the record”. Mr. Elkins asked if there is any possibility of the proposed change to a DRB being a voted ballot item. Developers support having a DRB, noted Mr. Elkins. Mr. Neme opined putting the decision to a public ballot vote is a bad idea. A special meeting would have to be held. Mr. Boyd suggested at Town Meeting (following the town meeting and prior to the school meeting), the public could be asked for their input. Mr. Roesler made a motion to postpone consideration of the resolution pending more information. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Talley suggested stating a date specific to address the matter further. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Talley, to table consideration of the draft resolution regarding the establishment of a DRB until the first Selectboard meeting in May to gather further input and to consider a joint meeting with the Zoning Board, Planning Commission, and consultants. DISCUSSION: Ms. Webster spoke in support of a joint meeting of the Zoning Board and Planning Commission to discuss the matter; the Zoning Board is opposed to the change. Paul Potter suggested writing an unbiased article in the Shelburne News. Mr. Holt stated the presentation about a DRB given six months ago was not unbiased. Seventy percent of citizens did not respond to the survey questionnaire. Mr. Roesler pointed out the Board received a listing of communities with DRBs prepared by the Burlington Planning and Zoning Office. The paper discussed the pros/cons of a DRB. The information can be available to the public at Town Meeting. Mr. Elkins suggested the Board listen to the Planning Commission more. There is a division of opinions on the Planning Commission regarding a DRB. Mr. Neme suggested a paper listing eight potential advantages and eight potential disadvantages could be prepared. Hilda White, Planning Commission member, suggested the public be informed of what is happening. As a Planning Commissioner, Ms. White said she would be very unhappy not to be able to implement what was planned. The proposed change will give all the power to the DRB. Mr. Neme pointed out the majority of the attendees at the informational meetings are from the Zoning Board and Planning Commission. Ms. Webster stated there was not enough publicity. The application for the Shelburne Inn made the front page of local paper. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 6. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM WILLIAM O’BRIEN FOR A WAIVER OF THE PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF HS 131 (Homestead Declaration) WITH THE STATE MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to grant the request by William O’Brien for waiver of the penalty for late filing of HS 131, Homestead Declaration, with the State as presented. DISCUSSION: Mr. Frankenburg stated according to Mr. O’Brien’s accountant his tax filing, including the HS131 Declaration was sent to the state by April 10th, however the state apparently lost it. At this time Town staff has not received concrete evidence the form was filed, when the state received it, and whether the state acknowledged it was lost. Mr. Frankenburg said he is uncomfortable waiving the fee until more information is received. The amount of $103.27 represents one percent of the school tax and that is a state mandated penalty. The Town is not at a disadvantage (no impact to the town) if the penalty is waived. Mr. Talley asked if the state has a mechanism to inform someone that their Homestead declaration was not filed. Mr. Frankenburg replied that the state resets the Town’s Grand List each year and the sends a notice to the Town to classify properties as Homestead (owner occupied) property as it receives homestead declarations. Mr. Neme noted this is not the first time the state has missed records. Mr. Frankenburg said the state will not discuss Mr O’Brien’s claim with the Town. Mr. Roesler suggested acting on the motion. The accountant is from a reputable firm. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 7. CONSIDER REQUEST BY VAJIR HIMANSHU FOR A WAIVER OF PENALTY AND INTEREST CHARGES FOR LATE PAYMENT OF SEWER Mr. Frankenburg clarified the request for waiver was actually made by Davinder Singh, who is leasing the property from Vajir Himanshu. MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to waive the penalty and interest charges requested by Davinder Singh in the amount of $102.99 for the Countryside Motel. VOTE: 0 ayes, 4 nays (Neme, Talley, Roesler, Boyd); motion did not carry. 8. CONSIDER APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE FOR $300,000 WITH CHITTENDEN BANK UNTIL MAY 15, 2007 AT AN ANNUAL INTEREST RATE OF 3.95 PERCENT MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to renew a Bond Anticipation Note for $300,000 with Chittenden Bank until May 15, 2007 at an annual interest rate of 3.95 percent as presented. VOTE: 4 ayes, 1 absent (Ms. McKnight); motion carried. The Selectboard signed the renewal documents. 9. CONSIDER APPROVING NEW ROAD NAME – Snowbound Lane Mr. Frankenburg explained there are two existing homes sharing a roadway and a third home is proposed. The roadway is located off Barstow Road. The applicant declined to consider a historical name. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to name the road off Barstow Road designated as “Snowbound Lane”. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 9.b) LIQUOR LICENSES The Selectboard signed Liquor Licenses for the following establishments: Cucina Antica Village Wine and Coffee Sirloin Saloon World Cup Café Harrington’s La Villa Buono Appettito Shelburne Supermarket Chef Leu’s 9.c) EXECUTION OF STIPULATION AGREEMENT FOR REDETERMINATION OF SHELBURNE’S EQUALIZED EDUCATION PROPERTY VALUE Mr. Frankenburg stated the CLA is based on three years of sales history. The state has agreed to remove four properties that have been determined as non “arms length” transactions. The revised CLA of 87.79 percent results in an Education property tax rate for Homestead property that is approximately one-cent lower. The Selectboard Chair will sign the document. MOTION by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to authorize the Selectboard Chair to sign the recalculation of the Shelburne CLA as presented. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. Mr. Neme signed the document. 10. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF 2/13/07 Mr. Frankenburg stated he had been asked to clarify that the term of Ron Bouchard’s appointment to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (which was made at the February 13th meeting) is actually until June 2007. MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to appoint Ron Bouchard as Shelburne’s Representative to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission for the remaining portion of a 2 year term, which will expire June 30, 2007. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to approve the Selectboard minutes of 2/13/07 DISCUSSION: Mr. Roesler felt it unnecessary to change the motion regarding the Harbor Road Stone Arch Bridge. Mr. Neme suggested deferring approval of the minutes until staff reviews the correct wording of the motion. VOTING: action deferred until staff reviews the motion regarding the stone arch bridge. 11. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the following items:
12. MEMBER CONCERNS The Board thanked Mr. Neme for his long and great service as a Selectboard member and as Selectboard Chair. Mr. Neme thanked the Town for the opportunity to serve Shelburne residents, and thanked the Board for an always respectful discussion. Mr. Talley urged the listening audience to attend the Town Meeting in March as well as meeting their town representatives. Mr. Boyd said he will be at Town Meeting, but will miss the first organized Board meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Talley, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. Accepted, For the Shelburne Selectboard Selectboard Meeting Minutes February 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes March 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes April 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes May 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes June 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes July 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes August 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes September 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes October 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes November 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes December 2007 Selectboard Meeting Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2008 |
