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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Giebink, Bruce Whitbeck, Jeff Nick, Ken Edwards, Craig Smith, Charles Brush, David Webster, Brian Prelock.

The Planning Commission reviewed suggested language from the Town Attorney. The language follows state statute and makes the town bylaw consistent with state and federal law. Per the language an elderly housing unit must have a resident 62 years or older or 55 years with the condition the facility meets physical and social needs of older persons, occupancy is 80% persons 55 years old or older, and written policies demonstrating the intent to provide housing for 55 year old and older persons.  The Planning Commission was supportive of the language as presented.

 

John Giebink asked about the words “facility” or “project” since there could be multiple buildings (four-plexes), but services in a single building that are accessed by residents residing in the other buildings.  It was clarified the wording is “housing complex” which is generalized.

 

Jeff Nick with Shelburne Baseball requested a provision in the bylaws to allow sponsorship signs on the baseball fields along Harbor Road. The signs make the field feel more like a ball field. Many area ball fields have sponsorship signs. There are port-a-lets, snowplows, and other items by the fields now so aesthetically the signs will not have a negative impact. The fields are set back from the roadway. Shelburne’s baseball program is growing every year. To date there are 350 participants. The program cost exceeds $40,000 per year. A capital campaign is done to raise funds for field maintenance and equipment as well as to cover program costs. Lots of work is done, but there is still lots of work to do. There are no dugouts on the back field as yet and bleachers are needed along with a batting cage.

 

Bruce Whitbeck mentioned the Babe Ruth baseball program (next level above Little League) is lacking equipment (bats, helmets, and such). Sponsorship will help sustain the program.  Space is sold out on the signs and there are five sponsors on the waiting list presently ($8,000 has been raised).

 

Ken Edwards mentioned the signs provide an opportunity for local businesses to further invest in the town infrastructure. More sponsors can be secured. Ongoing improvements are done to the existing fields. The signs will fit with the aesthetics of Shelburne. The background of the signs can be painted a dark color (dark green).

 

Dean Pierce reviewed suggestions submitted by Reg Gignoux, including having the provision apply to all community recreation fields, requiring uniformity in sign size (no larger than 4’ x 8’), requiring the background be painted dark green, requiring the background to be no less than 20% of the sign, removing the restriction on the number of signs, and indicating the signs are temporary--meaning they cannot be posted longer than six months a year (between April and September).  A letter from Betsy Cieplicki in support of the suggestions by Reg Gignoux was given to the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission discussed the sign provision applying to all community fields and decided to limit the provision to the baseball fields. Kate Lalley spoke in support of more facility upgrades, noting Harbor Road is the entrance to the village/town so aesthetics is an issue. Having a green background (25%-30% of the sign) and consistency is good. Dean Pierce will draft language for the sign provision.  There was discussion of the public hearing schedule before the Planning Commission and Selectboard prior to final adoption of the updated zoning bylaws.  The public needs to be aware of when the baseball sign issue will be up for adoption.

 

There was discussion of elder supportive service housing (ESSH) and density. Dean Pierce suggested 1,850 s.f. per unit is appropriate for ESSH versus the existing amount of 3,500 s.f. Per Reg Gignoux’s suggestion, a significant density bonus could be awarded to a project if the developer protects a large amount of undevelopable land by easement or if public access is allowed. Dick Elkins suggested there be a cap on the bonus units allowed. Per a memo from Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, it was suggested there be a 50% bonus for open space plus a housing bonus. Regarding the approach to portraying the density bonus, this could be calculated on land area or number of units.  There was discussion of including nondevelopable land area in the density calculation. Following further discussion the consensus of the Planning Commission is not to include this in the calculation. Dean Pierce stated if undevelopable land is not counted for the density, the Planning Commission may want to consider rewarding something else happening to the land to provide a bonus (i.e. conservation or public access). Peter Gibbs asked if it is possible to have an aggregate of density bonuses that add up to 50%, for example. Mr. Pierce confirmed this or the 50% bonus could be applied to the total development no matter where it occurs. Per Reg Gignoux’s correspondence, stated Mr. Pierce, the density bonus must result in the town getting a significant benefit.

 

Comment was made that the word “unit” is too generic and should be replaced with “number of residences”. A gentleman in the audience asked how other towns handle density bonuses, adding the “town” is the people, not the budget. With regard to the existing trailer park, the square footage of the trailer park totals 200,000 s.f leaving 671,000 s.f. for development (2,662 s.f. per unit).  Dean Pierce stated the Planning Commission did discuss mobile home parks and added language for new mobile home parks as well as modifying existing mobile home parks. The Planning Commission looked at the area requirement per unit on a gross basis.

 

Dick Elkins said he is seeking a mix of housing (affordable, senior, market rate) and development that will benefit the town and the village overall. There was discussion of the village center district and development density potential.  David Webster, Shelburne resident, stated allowing more density could alter the village center in a significant way. There was continued discussion of affordable housing. It was noted number of units cannot be stated because there are many factors involved in determining the number of affordable units. There is language on this issue in the town plan.

 

Brian Precourt, Shelburne resident, observed 400 units or 324 units on a parcel is a staggering density.  Mr. Precourt recalled when his projects were reviewed by the Planning Commission the parcel of land was the significant consideration in the approval of the project, not square footage per unit. The tax assessor is the only entity using square footage per unit figures.

 

Tucker Holland stated the town would like to see greater density in the village core area versus the rural areas. The Planning Commission is struggling with one particular piece of property and the impact of the density language (unintended consequences). Peter Gibbs clarified the Planning Commission has been discussing removing undevelopable land from the density calculation in all zoning districts, not just relative to one piece of property. Dean Pierce added the Planning Commission is trying to determine appropriate numbers to be applied for and approved by the Development Review Board.  It was suggested there needs to be a differentiation between land being developed and land being redeveloped.

 

Craig Smith asked if there is consideration for affordable housing that is distinct from other housing (i.e. an incentive). Dick Elkins stated there is language in the regulations that addresses affordable housing. Peter Gibbs noted the Planning Commission is trying to allow for mixed uses on a site.  There was continued discussion of affordable housing and elder housing. David Webster stated the Planning Commission should be developing a plan that works for the entire town. Comment was made that if there is going to be a mix of homes, high end and affordable, the Planning Commission needs to look at what kind of density becomes affordable. Tucker Holland assured the Planning Commission is trying to determine practical, pragmatic numbers to help determine density.

 

There was further discussion of development of the land by the mobile home park. Peter Gibbs calculated 183 units on 20 acres of land averages out to 4,700 s.f. per unit. Comment was made that the number of residents per unit must also be a consideration. Brian Precourt asked if there will be a bonus in any district if undevelopable land is put into public use. Dean Pierce stated a density bonus is proposed in some of the other districts as reward for good design (i.e. PRD). Reg Gignoux suggested what a developer does to preserve an undevelopable portion of the land, such as conservation or public access, could be justification for a density bonus, stated Mr. Pierce.

 

The Pines in South Burlington was mentioned. It was noted at The Pines there are 210 residents in 185 units of elder housing on four acres. The one bedroom unit is 650 s.f. and the two bedroom unit is 850 s.f. There are 1.1 persons per residence.  Comment was made that mixed density is the opportunity for people to support the community, buying locally and helping neighbors, especially the elderly. The land development proposal by the mobile home park might include 185 ESSH, 25 mobile homes (existing), 21 affordable housing units (duplexes, cottages). The ESSH building might be as much as 60’ high (35’ is the current height limit in Shelburne; Dave Marshall has met with the Fire Chief, who can support a limit of 40’ from grade to highest window opening – or approximately 45’ from grade to eave) and set back 300’ from Shelburne Road or Falls Road.  Charles Brush, GMDG, stated a minimum of 200-225 elderly residents is needed for the ESSH. With the mobile home park, the Harrington House, and ESSH units there is not much area remaining for mixed use. One alternative is to build high end housing only on the site.  Kate Lalley suggested creating another district for the mobile home park because the situation is unique and the town has the need for the types of housing being proposed. Dick Elkins cautioned against spot zoning. Peter Gibbs said he would like to further explore the 50% density bonus idea. Dick Elkins felt the proposal is too dense for the area. More of a mix of development, including stores and restaurants, is needed. Kay Kraushaar pointed out there is affordable housing in town already, and there may not be the demand that is assumed. Also, there are issues of implication on other properties if the density bonus is provided. The Planning Commission did a good job of increasing density in zoning districts under the tutelage of the consultant (Mike Munson) and this should stand, stated Ms. Kraushaar.  Claude LaPierre felt he needs more information on the matter before making a decision. Tucker Holland expressed willingness to discuss the density matter further, but wants to be consistent with the work already done on the zoning districts.

 

The Planning Commission will continue discussion of outstanding issues at the next meeting (October 25, 2007).

 

Dean Pierce is drafting a memo for the Selectboard stating the Shelburne Planning Commission has concerns with the project.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Giebink, Cheryl Roberts, Vicki Carleton, Phil Carleton, Sharon Barton, Leah Chitwood, Ted Wimpey, Richard Williams, Peter Elias, Monica Varsakopoulos, Alex Varsakopoulos, Joyce Errecart, Linda Fishell, Craig Smith, Charles Brush, Gwen Webster.

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

There was discussion of elder supportive service housing (ESSH) and density in the village center (Shelburnewood and the proposed housing project by Green Mountain Development Group). Five density alternatives were reviewed and ranked. The alternatives include no change to existing zoning (allowing 108 units for the proposed project), Variation #1 showing 3,500 s.f. per ESSH unit (yields 147 units for the project), Variation #2 showing 1,850 s.f. per ESSH unit (yields 210 units), Variation #3 with a 25% unrestricted bonus to the developer provided there is conserved open space and public access (yields 263 units), Variation #4 with a one-to-one bonus and 15% cap (yields 242 units), and Variation #5 with a 35% unrestricted bonus resulting in 184 ESSH units and 100 other units including the existing 25 mobile homes plus 75 other housing units (yields 284 units). Ranking of the alternatives from highest to lowest: Variation #2 (210 units), Variation #1 (147 units), Variation #4 (242 units), Variation #3 (263 units), and a tie for Variation #5 (284 units) and no change to existing zoning (108 units).

 

Linda Fishell, Shelburne resident, expressed concern about the traffic the proposed development will generate. In the existing situation there have been many near accidents.  Tucker Holland explained there is not a specific plan for traffic at this juncture. The Planning Commission is discussing modification to the bylaws relative to density in the village center area.  John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG), explained with the proposed project, elderly housing will be the majority of the density. This type of population does not generate much traffic. There will be no additional traffic through the existing entrance to the Thomas mobile home part. Traffic will be funneled to the north with access to Route 7. There has been some discussion of the possibility of a traffic light, but it is too early in the process to make a determination at this time.

 

A woman in the audience stated at past meetings on the village plan congestion at the traffic light, rerouting traffic, and installing a roundabout were discussed. Traffic on Route 7 and at the intersection should be addressed as a separate issue from the development on the Thomas and Dyer property. There is no way additional traffic can be funneled out of the existing entryway.  Regarding the proposed development, many residents of Shelburne are not even aware of Shelburnewood; the mobile home park is out of sight, out of mind, and much of the proposed development will be the same. The town must accommodate the need for vitality in the village. The Terraces and the Arbors were controversial developments when first proposed, but both have brought vitality to the village economy.  The proposed development and the residents will contribute to the town.  Tucker Holland explained the Planning Commission is trying to allow density in the village to happen in a thoughtful manner so there are no regrets in the future.  Reg Gignoux added the Planning Commission is also concerned about traffic in the village.

 

Ted Wimpey with Statewide Housing Services stated his organization has been working with the residents of Shelburnewood on the mobile home park project. Mr. Wimpey urged the Planning Commission to retain the mobile home park and expand density per ‘smart growth’ in the concepts of growth centers, higher density, downtown areas. It is important to have communities supporting fair housing, and one way is to achieve appropriate density in the downtown area rather than scattered over fields throughout the state.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, suggested the Planning Commission know how many living units are in the village presently so the percentage of increase will be known before making any changes to density.  Dean Pierce reviewed data showing person(s) per acre with the proposed development (340 residences on 43 acres equates to 7.9 persons per acre for ESSH; with the other housing types the density is 13.9 persons per acre). Per the 2000 census, density in Shelburnewood would increase from 1.3 persons per acre to 7.9 persons per acre for elder housing. Comparison was made to an area on Falls Road showing 8.8 persons per acre.  John Giebink mentioned the resident density of Shelburne Bay Senior Living could provide a comparison for elderly housing density. Wake Robin was mentioned. It was noted of the 100 acres on the Wake Robin site only about 20 acres are developed.

 

Craig Smith, Shelburne resident, stated the vision of the town relative to affordable housing should be achieved. Mr. Smith spoke in support of the range of density proposed due to congregate housing for elder residents.

 

Phil Carleton, Shelburne resident, observed there are mostly single family and some apartments in the downtown area, and there is not much developable land within easy walking distance to the village center so it makes sense to put the density on the Shelburnewood parcel. Independent living elder housing units will have residents who are mobile and want to utilize the downtown area.  Tucker Holland stated the Planning Commission is in general agreement as is the town plan, but how to best execute the plan must be determined. Linda Fishell asked if town services can support the density. Mr. Holland assured all the issues will be reviewed when a specific project is brought forth.

 

Peter Elias, Shelburne resident, echoed comments by Ted Wimpey and spoke in favor of smart, high density growth.

 

John Giebink, GMDG, recalled past discussion involved how to build affordable housing and preserve the mobile home park, conserving land and providing public access, and housing bonuses contingent upon preserved land. Now the discussion is about density calculated on buildable area. Providing higher density to build affordable housing seems to be going by the wayside.  Mr. Giebink asked the Planning Commission to look at the town plan with regard to affordable housing and the mobile home park. The proposal by GMDG is a good way to move forward with the parcel of land under discussion. A significant portion of the development will be elderly housing which has low traffic impact and no impact on the school system. In addition it is good to take care of the town’s elders. The development will also offer some affordable housing variety as well.  Tucker Holland agreed elder care housing in the same area long term is good, and there is a need, but the density must be in the context of what the town is trying to achieve in the village core.  The Planning Commission is in support of elder housing and Shelburnewood, but has to consider the context of the plan so there are no regrets in the future.

 

There was question of one project receiving a density bonus when another project does not.  Reg Gignoux stressed a methodology that is universally applied must be determined. The permitted density given other bylaws for the village core/center must be known. The town wants to maintain and encourage multiple types and uses of structures. More integration of Shelburnewood into the town is desired and can be achieved with roads, walkways, paths, and such.

 

Richard Williams with the Vermont State Housing Authority/HFI stated there is a purchase and sales agreement on both parcels of land (Thomas and Dyer).  The situation has been hard on the sellers. Shelburnewood itself is a beautiful property. The LaPlatte River is a great natural resource in the town. The residents of the mobile home park cannot buy the expensive piece of property themselves. The developers have promised to develop only half of the property. The remaining half will be untouched yet accessible by the public. Previously there was not access to the area. The LaPlatte River will be protected. Shelburne is in a unique situation by having 42 acres in the downtown area that can be developed. If the purchase and sales agreement is terminated the sellers can close the park in nine months and the current residents will have to relocate. The August 3, 2007 publication by Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs may provide some guidance with mobile home parks (relative to the square footage per mobile home in the park). The mixed use project can be designed to fit the location.

 

Vicki Carleton, Shelburnewood resident, stressed time is of the essence. The residents of Shelburnewood do not know if their homes are secure due to the situation.

 

Reg Gignoux stated any information about similar projects is welcome. Ted Wimpey acknowledged having density and affordability, maintaining natural areas and providing public access is not easy to achieve. Mr. Wimpey will do some research and forward the information to the Planning Commission. Rep. Joyce Errecart noted the state natural resource committee has discussed housing in Vermont. Ms. Errecart will forward pertinent information.

 

Sharon Barton, Shelburnewood resident, requested a copy of the town plan. It was noted the plan can be accessed from the town’s website.

 

Kate Lalley spoke about examples of density in the state, typically occurring around water ways (Vergennes, Middlebury, Winooski). Ms. Lalley suggested looking at the historic character of the places that are admired. The town is seeking dense housing with sidewalks/trails to a vibrant shopping center area where there are a variety of shops, restaurants, and such (pedestrian oriented). This suggests a complex layering of housing and businesses. Ms. Lalley urged the Planning Commission to think about density in different ways.

 

Reg Gignoux expressed concern about labels, noting the town plan and vision for the town encompasses all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds, not just elderly.  This consideration should be part of the Shelburnewood expansion, and the Planning Commission needs to ensure the town has the right tools to meet the vision.  John Giebink interjected the proposal is exactly that, an extension and continuation of the fabric of the village.

 

Peter Gibbs commented the discussion is about greater density and four different types of units/uses. Mr. Gibbs spoke in support of increasing density to 210 units (essentially doubling the number of units allowed under existing zoning regulations).  Claude LaPierre and Kay Kraushaar concurred with allowing 210 units. Ms. Kraushaar pointed out the alternative to allow 210 units also provides a good variety of housing units. Creative planning is still needed.  Dick Elkins spoke in support of less units (147) and lower square footage per ESSH unit (1,850 s.f.).  Kate Lalley favored allowing 242 units, noting there is good to come with density especially in the downtown area rather than in the outlying spaces. The town needs affordable housing and should take care of its elderly population. In order to get people out of their cars and walking there must be connected paths and sidewalks. The parcel allows the town to do something different and quite wonderful. Reg Gignoux mentioned gross density and net density, opining unbuildable area should also be part of the consideration for bonuses because there will be green space, trails, and natural resources preserved.  Under existing regulations Shelburne is approximately 65% built out. There are denser communities. Shelburne is seeking a denser community with plenty of green space around it. Thirty percent of the land in the community is preserved already so there is a wonderful base. Mr. Gignoux spoke in support of allowing 242 units because there will be greater diversity of housing types.

 

There was discussion of the figure of  8,000 s.f. per mobile home unit. Peter Gibbs felt this may not be the existing situation in the mobile home park (i.e. the gross square footage per unit may be less). If less square footage per unit is the case, then more area elsewhere on the parcel is available for development.  John Giebink stated Civil Engineering Associates determined there is 5,000 s.f. per unit. Dean Pierce mentioned the area for each mobile home unit meeting the requirements for the state funding grant. Richard Williams stated there is not state minimum lot size for mobile homes. Dick Elkins pointed out 8,000 s.f. per mobile home unit provides space for storage, roads, and a small park. The park will be rebuilt as will the roads so it is better to have the space.

 

Mr. Pierce mentioned the option of transfer of development rights (TDR) as a means to increase density on the site. Tucker Holland agreed TDR is more desirable than using non-developable land in the density calculation. There appears to be lots of flexibility for development with Variation #2 (210 units). Dean Pierce suggested the Planning Commission keep in mind the notion that people will walk a half mile maximum to get to places. Also, new development in the village core should incorporate the mixed use character existing in the village. New streets should extend the pattern existing in the village (relative to width, length of blocks, building spacing, and such). The rural landscape along the edge of the village should be protected for conservation or next steps.  The Planning Commission may want to consider a maximum lot size in the village center to prevent “Mac-mansion lots” especially if the zoning is changed to accommodate the proposed development and the development for some reason does not occur.

 

John Giebink asked about lowering the land area requirement for affordable housing versus single family housing.  Dean Pierce pointed out land cost is not the only way to realize affordable housing.  It could be stated that affordable units do not require as much land as market rate units. There was discussion of ways to earn density bonuses (provide affordable housing, good design, and such). Dick Elkins spoke against including undevelopable land in the calculation for a bonus. The GMDG proposal is urbanizing the area and a mix of housing units is needed. Traffic will be generated. There was further discussion of the various scenarios of development for the site. A consensus of support for Variation #2 yielding 210 units was noted. The Planning Commission will continue discussing the bonus component at the next meeting.

 

Dean Pierce will research existing lot sizes in the village and make a recommendation on maximum lot size. The draft language of the regulation for baseball outfield signs was reviewed. The display period was defined as April 15^th through September 15^th. A handout on the scope of zoning changes was given to the Planning Commission.

Modification to the meeting schedule included: the meeting on 11/20/07 will begin at 5 p.m., there will not be a meeting on December 1^st, public hearings on the zoning bylaws update will occur on 1/10/08 and 1/17/08.

 

A graphic of the wind turbine was given to the Planning Commission as well as a map of the tower site showing the viewshed area. The wind turbine is not in the viewshed. Dean Pierce recalled the Planning Commission received two wind turbine applications in the past and both applications were withdrawn by the applicants (Fishman and Valanti).

 

 

Dean Pierce stated his memo to the Shelburne Selectboard will be advising if the Environmental Commission decides to alter the Act 250 permit condition for the development at 2000 Dorset Street, the Town of Shelburne feels there should be a hearing.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.