MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs, Tucker Holland, Kay Kraushaar, Dick Elkins, Claude LaPierre. (Reg Gignoux and Kate Lalley were absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Tom Koerner, Nelleke Rosenthal, Ed Vizvarie, Cheryl Roberts, Phil Carleton, Jim Washburn, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

In the absence of Reg Gignoux, Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Dean Pierce reported the application has been withdrawn by the applicant and will be resubmitted before the Development Review Board.

Tom Koerner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Koerner showed the proposed open space, septic and replacement areas, and building envelopes on the site plan. The developable areas on the lake side without a PRD is larger than what is proposed as a PRD, noted Mr. Koerner, adding there will be a total of two single family homes and accessory structures on the land. The soil limits the number of bedrooms to seven on the total 7.3 acres. Potential locations of the septic systems were shown. It may be necessary to pump the septic material across the road to a tank.  There was discussion of accessory structures. Mr. Koerner stated there can only be two principal structures on the property due to the limitation of the soil for on-site septic systems.  There was discussion of the potential in the future of further development of the lots if the zoning in the area is changed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/13/07.  There was discussion of the open space shown on the site plan. Kay Kraushaar expressed concern about the septic systems being located in the open space. Dean Pierce referred to Section 1630.3, Paragraph 4, regarding open space within a PRD and its intent. Tucker Holland observed 80% of the land in the proposal cannot be developed due to setbacks. Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee recommended enhancing the green space by locating the open space area along the road side with the accessory buildings farther back. Dick Elkins mentioned the primary deer corridor in the open space area. Kay Kraushaar again expressed concern about the septic systems being in the open space, suggesting the systems be moved into the area designated for the accessory structures.  There was discussion of having a management plan for the open space as a condition of approval.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Nelleke Rosenthal, 3984 Harbor Road, asked for clarification of the open space and the suggestion to group the area into one large space rather than having the open space along three sides of lots #2 and #4. Tom Koerner assured 33% of the acreage will be open space and the building envelopes will be slightly reconfigured for the accessory structures. Ms. Rosenthal suggested there be a restriction on expansion of the accessory structures beyond what the structures are intended to be.  There was further discussion of the accessory structures and whether a guest house or apartment would be allowed on the newly created lots as a permitted use.  Dean Pierce suggested the matter be resolved if it is a pertinent part of the applicant’s proposal. One approach could be to put the onus on the applicant as part of Preliminary Plan submission or for town staff to get a legal opinion on whether an accessory apartment on a separate lot is a conditional or permitted use.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dean Pierce explained the municipal planning grant application to be submitted to hire a consultant to assist with the next phase of the zoning update.

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the memo from Dean Pierce, dated 9/6/07, concerning zoning. There was discussion of possible changes to zoning in the Village Center district, including review of mobile home park related zoning changes, zoning changes requested by Green Mountain Development Group (memo to Planning Commission, dated 8/21/07) and suggested changes by staff. Regarding mobile home parks, staff advised the current comprehensive proposal be modified to include language addressing nonconforming mobile home parks, new mobile home parks, and modified/expanded mobile home parks. There was discussion of the land area requirement associated with individual mobile home lots and for parks as a whole. Per the memo from staff, the lot area requirement of 5,000 s.f. and gross area requirement of 8,000 s.f. were recommended. Other zoning changes suggested by staff include density bonus provisions, alternative lot area requirements for affordable housing, additional elderly housing related uses, and limits on the scale of elderly housing related uses. Following lengthy discussion there was general support for the area requirements for mobile homes as recommended by staff. There was also agreement that ‘Elderly Supportive Service Housing’ should be added to the list of allowable uses in the Village Center district. Regarding limits on the size of elderly related uses, there was general agreement though two commissioners expressed reservation with increasing the maximum size of such uses and applying size restrictions to the number of units in a single building as opposed to the number of units within a single development.  Density bonuses in the Village Center district were viewed favorable in general by the Planning Commission. Representatives from Green Mountain Development Group suggested the proposal could be more specific with regard to types of units required to earn a density bonus and the types of bonus units earned. It was noted in some communities, the provision of a specified number of affordable units is rewarded with a bonus of market rate units or a combination of affordable and market rate units. This flexible approach was viewed favorably by at least one member of the Planning Commission.  There was also discussion of the proposal to reduce lot area requirements for affordable single family and multi-family housing units. The general consensus of the Planning Commission is to support including up to 50% of undevelopable land in baseline density calculations for PUD developments in the district, but before supporting further reduction in lot size requirements, the Planning Commission wanted to understand potential impacts. Staff will provide scenarios of development potential under various zoning frameworks including existing zoning, current zoning proposal (developed with Mike Munson), staff recommendations, and suggestions from the Green Mountain Development Group. Staff will try to provide the scenarios by the 9/27/07 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kraushaar,  Claude LaPierre. (Tucker Holland and Kate Lalley were absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Margot Callahan (Shelburne News), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News),  Jim Bahrenburg, John Holt, Tony Cairns, David Marshall, John Giebink, Charlie Brush, David Webster

 

Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.

 

A.        REQUEST BY CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY TO ADD “COMMERCIAL FLEET FUELING” AS ALLOWABLE USE IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ZONE

 

Tony Cairns appeared and requested that Commercial Fleet Fueling be made an allowable use within the Town. He suggested three possible locations, one in the Residential-Commercial District (Mixed Use in proposed zoning) and two in the Commerce and Industry District. He described the nature of the use, including access, safety features, and traffic generation.  Commissioners responded neutrally, indicating they would take the request “under advisement.” 

 

B.         REQUEST BY JAMES BAHRENBURG TO CHANGE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR LOT 9 IN SHELBURNE MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK FROM COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO RESIDENTIAL (OR  RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL)

 

James Bahrenburg appeared and requested that a lot he intends to purchase be re-zoned to Residential or Mixed use. Mr. Bahrenburg indicated that, were the zoning to change, he would proposed to subdivide the parcel into three residential building lots.  Planning Commissioners responded that a change to Residential use appears to be more appropriate than a change to Mixed use.  John Holt, who resides south of the lot in question, indicated that the Farrell family would support a change to Residential use and would not object to three house lots.

 

C.        CORRECTION OF DESIGNATION FOR PARCEL IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DISTRICT

 

Staff explained that a mapping error arising during the updating the Town Plan resulted in a portion of the land owned by the Farrell family being designated Commerce and Industry (current Zoning designation is correct, however). No such change was desired or intended, and Staff proposes the error be corrected. John Holt indicated that the Farrell family does not wish for the land to retain the Commerce and Industry designation under the Plan.

  

D.        REQUEST BY GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT GROUP REGARDING USE, DENSITY, AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROPOSED VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT

 

Dean Pierce reviewed the four scenarios summarized in the table distributed with the meeting packets. He described the assumptions contained in the scenarios and identified possible issues.

 

Commissioners provided their comments on the scenarios and on the requested changes overall.  A few Commissioners raised concerns about the amount of development possible under some of the scenarios. Reg Gignoux suggested that perhaps the residential density bonus could be increased to as much as 50 percent, but only when a combination of conditions is met (as opposed to when one of a series of conditions is met). Dick Elkins suggested an alternative approach under which developers would earn a 100 percent density bonus for affordable housing units, up to some maximum percentage.  Commissioners and at least one audience member also expressed some concern about the proposal to base development potential on developable land and a portion of the site’s ‘undevelopable’ land.

 

Other members of the audience offered comments. David Marshall indicated he believes there might be two main components any density bonus, one related to preservation of resource lands and the other related to affordable housing.  In his opinion, to be successful, the affordable housing portion of the credit should be incentive-based rather than inclusionary based.  Charlie Brush indicated two additional market rate units are required for each affordable unit.

 

John Giebink commented on the need for a mix of housing types within any project developed using the revised zoning. He also repeated his belief that for some unit types density is better defined in terms of bedroom numbers than in terms of units.  Staff responded that similar objectives can be reached using either bedrooms or units.

 

Dean Pierce then explained that the scenarios presented in the table are based on gross density, not net density.  If Planning Commissioners are not comfortable with using a gross density approach, Dean indicated he would like to know. No concerns were voiced.

 

Discussion continued. At the conclusion of the discussion, Reg Gignoux asked if Planning Commissioners are using the same vocabulary as those requesting the zoning changes. He also asked representatives of Green Mountain Development Group if they feel Planning Commissioners misunderstand any aspects of the request. John Giebink responded that he thinks parties are using a common vocabulary and are ‘on the same page.’   However, he is concerned about the length of time that may be required to adopt any zoning changes.

 

E.         SCHEDULE AND ADDITIONAL ZONING ITEMS

 

Dean Pierce mentioned to Planning Commissioners that Jeff Nick may appear at a future meeting to discuss changes related to drive through facilities at pharmacies and signs in the outfield of the baseball fields.   David Marshall then asked about whether building size restrictions remain a feature of the proposed Mixed Use zone, particularly as it relates to uses such as Rice Lumber.  Dean Pierce responded that the building size limit remains in the draft. However, rather than excluding a specific use from any size limits, it may be more appropriate to address the issue in sections of the bylaw that address modifications to non-complying structures.

 

Staff then asked Commissioners if they could anticipate a date by which they might be ready to warn the zoning bylaw for a public hearing.  Commissioners are not prepared to discuss the date for a hearing until changes to the village center district are finalized.  Dean Pierce then asked if Commissioners would be interested in inviting someone from the organization Smart Growth Vermont (Brian Shupe) to offer suggestions about the rezoning issue.  Commissioners responded favorably to this suggestion.  Therefore, Staff will pursue it.  Dean Pierce also asked if he should attempt to prepare additional scenarios reflecting comments made by Reg Gignoux, Dick Elkins, and David Marshall. Commissioners again responded favorably, although Dick Elkins added he would like to see some attention given to scenarios that require a mix of housing types and land use.

 

F.         COMMISSION REACTION TO REQUESTS

 

Commissioners later discussed their reaction to the requests made by Mr. Bahrenburg and Mr. Cairns.  After brief discussion, Commissioners indicated that the minutes should show the Planning Commission does support modification of the zoning designation for the Bahrenburg lot (lot 9 in the Shelburne Business Park subdivision) from Commerce and Industry to Residential (but not Mixed Use).   

 

After additional discussion, Commissioners indicated that the minutes should also show the Planning Commission does not support the request submitted by Mr. Cairns.

 

 

Dean Pierce reported the Town has received a copy of application materials filed with the Act 250 office (District Environmental Commission) and relating to the Dorset Farms development.  Amendment of the Dorset Farms Act 250 application is necessary to allow the 2000 Dorset project to go forward, since the new project is proposed to be located on land the Act 250 permit identified as required open space.

 

The Town of Shelburne participated in the original Act 250 hearings for Dorset Farms, appealing aspects of the approval to the Supreme Court. As part of the latest filing, the developer’s attorney has prepared a legal memo arguing that a “partial amendment” of the Act 250 permit is warranted. The memo also argues that the Town of Shelburne never “accepted the permit” with its conditions and, therefore, cannot claim to have relied on any specific conditions it contains.

 

Commissioners discussed the attorney’s memo, which also asserts that the policy shift in the City of South Burlington’s new Plan “will ultimately preserve more open spaces along the Shelburne town line with a higher ecological value and with connections to important ecological open space areas in the Town of Shelburne.” Staff asked if Planning Commissioners believe they should exercise the statutory party status accorded to the Planning Commission under Act 250. Commissioners responded yes, even if only to raise the question ‘Where would more high value open space be preserved?’

 

No significant discussion.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.