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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Giebink, Charlie Brush, Ken Albert, Gail Albert, Gregg Beldock, Jeff Jackson, David Webster, and others.

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.

 

Deferred until the next meeting.

 

Ken Albert, Shelburne Vineyards, stated the vineyard was approved in the current zone (Rural-2). Proposed change in zoning will convert the district from Rural-2 to Residential-2. Integrated agriculture is not a permitted or conditional use in the Residential-2 zone. Options include maintaining the current zone as Rural-2 by the vineyard and the land under conservation along Route 7 or making integrated agriculture a conditional use so the vineyard will be conforming in the Residential-2 district. Also, the vineyard would like a sign, but is not a PUD. The regulations for signs in a PUD allow a 32 s.f. sign. Regulations similar to those for a PUD could be applied to the vineyard, suggested Mr. Albert. Integrated agriculture is a value added proposition. The vineyard needs to market its product so a sign is necessary.  Due to the state right-of-way on Route 7 and a hedgerow the sign would be set back approximately 45’. Dean Pierce stated changes to the zoning regulations reflect changes made to the Town Plan. The change from Rural-2 to Residential-2 is proposed so the list of uses in the residential district will need to be amended (to include integrated agriculture). Language could be added such as “...existing as to the effective date of the regulations...” Regarding the signs, integrated agriculture could be added to the section of the sign regulations dealing with farms. Farms are allowed a 16 s.f. sign. The sign regulations for sign size in the residential district and for farms were further reviewed. It was noted there are pre-existing signs that may not conform to the current regulations or may be in the state right-of-way on Route 7.  The proposed regulations for signs in the residential area allow a 10 s.f. sign. Ken Albert questioned the change in zoning along Route 7 to the Charlotte border to residential. Dean Pierce gave a brief history of the work with planning consultant, Mike Munson, and the advice to consolidate residential districts.

 

Dean Pierce noted receipt of an email from Michael Simoneau related to adding equipment rentals to the Mixed Use district. Additional information was anticipated from Mr. Simoneau, but not yet received. A note was also received from Jeff Jackson.

 

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point, pointed out the Selectboard deleted the increase to the lakeshore setback because there was no reason for the change, yet the Planning Commission is trying to increase the setback. Tucker Holland explained increasing the setback by 100% to 200’ was in response to the notion of preserving the visual beauty of Shelburne from all angles including from the water. The proposed change was deleted because it was felt to be too extreme a change from the existing situation. Dean Pierce added the basis of the change was also due to storm water issues and protecting water quality.  Mr. Jackson interjected he has not seen evidence of water quality issues. The 125’ setback only further restricts development, stated Mr. Jackson, adding his house would then be a non-complying structure. There are six other lakeshore residences impacted as well.  Mr. Jackson asked to see supporting information justifying the zoning change. Peter Gibbs explained a change was made from where the measurement is taken. The elevation point is 98’, not 102’ so the starting point is farther out toward the lake depending on the property. Mr. Jackson pointed out there are many areas on Shelburne Point with a vertical drop to the water. Mr. Gibbs further explained the 98’ mark is the mean high water mark which makes sense to use relative to useable land year round. The change was made to protect water quality. There was further discussion of the rationale for the lakeshore setback. Mr. Jackson said he would like to know the impact on the lots on Shelburne Point specifically, and will do whatever is necessary to protect the lots which were approved by the Planning Commission previously.  The change is not about erosion, opined Mr. Jackson, but about aesthetics. The Town of Shelburne does not own Lake Champlain. No one opposed the Shelburne Point project, stated Mr. Jackson, and great effort was made to treat the area as a special place and come to an agreement with the town for development. There should not be a blanket change all over the Shelburne lakeshore because everyone’s property is different. The view and forest management plans that were designed for the Shelburne Point project are unique to the situation on the point. Most of the lakeshore is developed so to blanket with regulations targeted to one project is not appropriate.  Reg Gignoux mentioned Shelburne Farms. Jeff Jackson pointed out Shelburne Farms is under conservation and it is not in their plan to develop the farm land. There was further discussion about the Shelburne Point project and the Planning Commission’s interaction. Mr. Jackson felt the situation is like the fox watching the henhouse in that the board that approves the permits is the same board that makes the rules and can change the rules if the permitted project is not desired.  Tucker Holland interjected the intention of the Planning Commission is hardly what Mr. Jackson described. Aesthetics is an important component, but there are other considerations. Mr. Holland said he thought the Jackson project was presented as being a model that other developer’s could follow, but now Jeff Jackson seems to be saying people should be able to do whatever they want. Mr. Jackson stated most of the Shelburne shoreline is already subdivided; there can be no more subdivisions. The view cutting regulations for Shelburne Point do not apply to most of the lots on the east side of Shelburne Bay. There may be some areas to tighten up, especially relative to selective cutting. Mr. Jackson asked to see information on the impact of the zoning change on each lot on Shelburne Point. There was continued discussion of the lakeshore setback. Jeff Jackson reiterated his concern about applying the same restrictions on the lots on Shelburne Point across all lakeshore properties. Having language on seawalls and docks is good, but more work is needed in this area.

 

Gregg Beldock stated the State of Vermont is under serviced relative to senior housing and is providing only 13% of requisite congregate care needs.  Article XXI of the Shelburne regulations pertains to housing for people who are aging. The definitions of “elder care facility” and “elderly housing” are confusing and need clarification. Mr. Beldock suggested instead of referring to ‘assisted care’ and ‘independent living’ units, the town could use the federal definition for senior housing which segregates into levels. Level 4 is independent living, Level 3 is assisted living, Level 2 is nursing home, and Level 1 is a greater need beyond nursing home, perhaps memory impaired care.  Mr. Beldock offered to provide more information and suggested definitions of elder housing and elder care facility. Mr. Beldock suggested the town use the federal guidelines for age relative to senior housing (60 years rather than 55 years).

 

Mr. Beldock also mentioned density guidelines in the Mixed Use district, noting the guideline as shown in Section 1930.1 may have the reverse effect if the intention is to have density where density is appropriate and maintain open space where open space is appropriate. The dimensional requirement for elder housing is 7,500 s.f., but there is no dimensional requirement noted for elder care facility. Senior housing should be vertical and the Mixed Use zone is appropriate for greater density. Congregate care should be encouraged. Efficient type of housing should be in the Mixed Use district. There was mention of density bonuses awarded for imaginative design, LEED certified buildings, more outdoor access. Gregg Beldock felt these items should be required as part of the development in order to receive approval for a project.  Section 1930.1.C, Table 2, Elder housing shows 7,500 s.f. per dwelling unit which is more expansive than what is existing, stated Mr. Beldock. Dean Pierce explained in the Mixed Use district housing for elderly is 7,500 s.f. which means more land is required per unit, not more units. Gregg Beldock interjected that the building footprint is then spread out which could push elder housing out into rural areas where it should not be located.  Progression of aging in a housing facility was mentioned. Mr. Beldock will provide information on this matter.

 

Mr. Beldock referred to Section 1030.1 – dimensional requirements, noting housing for the elderly is different than elder housing. A definition of both terms is needed. Section 1030.6 speaks to a maximum building footprint of 10,000 s.f. which will not work for Level 1, 2, or 3 housing. Mr. Beldock will provide additional information on elder housing to the Planning Commission.

 

John Giebink, GMDG, spoke about the density requirements for a mobile home park (5,000 s.f. or 8,000 s.f.). Peter Gibbs clarified the individual lot with a mobile home is 5,000 s.f., but when roads, driveways, and other amenities are includes the density is based on 8,000 s.f.  Mr. Giebink pointed out the existing park (Shelburnewood) is on a land area of 5,000 s.f. per unit including all amenities (as determined by Civil Engineering Associates) so if the density is changed to 8,000 s.f. the density of the park is being decreased by 35%.  There was further discussion of the density needed for mobile home parks. Dean Pierce suggested language could be added to the regulations to indicate “gross density requirements”. Mr. Giebink pointed out Shelburnewood mobile home park is part of a larger project which includes green space and trails so the density should be 5,000 s.f. per mobile home.  Reg Gignoux suggested maintaining the 8,000 s.f. density, but allowing a 35% density bonus because the park is part of a larger development with amenities.

 

Charlie Brush, GMDG, acknowledged there are differing opinions on the Planning Commission with regard to density and asked for a straw vote on the density bonus issue so the process can move forward. Peter Gibbs stated each mobile home should have 5,000 s.f. for their lot, but 8,000 s.f. is used in calculating the number of mobile homes in the park overall.  Reg Gignoux stated 5,000 s.f. is tight. Using 8,000 s.f. allows for amenities, such as a driveway. Tucker Holland agreed 8,000 s.f. makes sense in the absence of an alternate plan. Kay Kraushaar and Kate Lalley agreed, adding amenities such as sidewalks and planting areas for transition between building types are needed. Claude LaPierre spoke in support of 5,000 s.f. per unit. David Webster, Shelburne resident, asked if 8,000 s.f. will allow the existing mobile home park to have certain services that are not there now. Dean Pierce confirmed there will be some degree of reconfiguration and improvement of facilities.

 

John Giebink mentioned building height, pointing out the regulations will allow a 35’ high, flat roofed building. Using the mid-point of the eave to the mid-point of the ridge promotes pitched roofs. The Development Review Board could then determine the overall height of the building. Tucker Holland agreed with using the mid-point, but suggested the existing grade rather than the finished grade is the guide. Regarding overall height, the DRB could make the decision provided there is language in the regulations to give clear guidance. Reg Gignoux also agreed with allowing the DRB to decide on building height, especially if innovative design or multiple ridge lines are employed in the project. Kate Lalley pointed out a more dense Shelburne could look like Woodstock, Vermont, and it is good to rely on a public process like the DRB. Finished versus existing grade depends on the site situation.  There was further discussion of using finished grade versus existing grade as the measurement start point for building height. Claude LaPierre spoke in support of using the finished grade and allowing the DRB to decide building height. Peter Gibbs spoke in support of using the existing grade, the mid-point to promote sloped roofs, and DRB approval for greater than 35’ in height from the existing grade provided there are criteria to guide the DRB decision.  Kay Kraushaar echoed the comments by Mr. Gibbs regarding existing grade and the need for concrete guidance on building height. Ms. Kraushaar felt 35’ building height has served the town well in keeping the scale of the village. Dick Elkins agreed with the 35’ height limit because this gives the village its character.  Discussion of raising the roof height in the Mixed Use district could occur though.  Charlie Brush pointed out there are no regulations against a 20’ high flat roof building (big box store). The issue is the design of the building. Shelburne has taller buildings on Main Street in the village. A pitched roof makes a building look less massive.  David Webster noted 45’ is higher than any existing buildings in the village except the Methodist Church roof ridge. Mr. Webster asked about an upper end restriction/cap. John Giebink reiterated measuring from the finished grade is better for a project especially with a larger project area.  There was further discussion of building height and the ability of the town to provide fire coverage. Mr. Giebink pointed out the structure would be fire protected. Dean Pierce will get a letter from the Shelburne Fire Chief regarding the matter of fire protection and building height.

 

John Giebink stated in acknowledgement of smart growth smaller, more efficient sized housing is proposed so lot area size can be decreased.  Tucker Holland pointed out the town is increasing density over existing density as follows: single family by 25% (versus the request for 67% increase), two-family by 33% (versus the request for 100% increase) and multi-family by 33% (versus the request for 100% increase). Mr. Giebink pointed out a lot has more value with a larger home on it rather than a smaller home. Increasing density is a way to entice a developer to build smaller, more affordable homes. Kate Lalley agreed smaller lots are more affordable so there will be more affordable housing and a variety of housing. The area could be like the housing around UVM (1,750 s.f. houses on 7,500 s.f. lots).  Stowe village is another example of small lots. Gail Albert, Shelburne resident, suggested rather than giving bonuses that use up more open space the Planning Commission could consider the concept of condensing where the housing is mixed and diverse, and saving large portions of land in conservation that will not be just a perimeter piece of land which is not very useful.  Reg Gignoux spoke in support of developing the center core of the village so the town maintains its character. Other examples of such communities in Vermont are St. Johnsbury, Bennington, and Woodstock. Peter Gibbs expressed support for the work done with Mike Munson (i.e. 10,000 s.f. for a single family house and 7,500 s.f. for a multi-family dwelling). Kay Kraushaar echoed Mr. Gibbs’ comments, noting the town survey indicated residents do not want to excessively increase density. It was noted lots on Falls Road are approximately 10,000 s.f. as a point of reference. Claude LaPierre expressed willingness to find a mid-point between the work by Mike Munson and the proposal by GMDG. Dick Elkins spoke in support of the work by Mike Munson. There was agreement a clarification of definition of elderly housing is needed. Terms need to be better defined to better determine what land area is needed.  There was discussion of the levels mentioned by Gregg Beldock pertaining to care received versus living units. Charlie Brush cautioned against using a medical model versus a residential model, noting it is very expensive to tie medical needs to residential housing because there are mandates for services provided.  Many nursing homes are closing or are only available to those who can afford the services. The use is the critical factor for zoning, not the care. Peter Gibbs interjected having a more clear definition of ‘independent living’ and ‘assisted living’ will help determine appropriate land area.  John Giebink pointed out more staff and personnel are needed at a nursing home so there is more traffic impact than at senior housing with small individual units with kitchens and common areas. VNA services come to the site. There is no kitchen staff to serve community meals.  The Shelburne regulations already contain definitions for nursing home, elder care, and elderly housing (independent living) so the issue is covered from a zoning density standpoint. Mr. Giebink mentioned The Pines in South Burlington which is ESSH type housing with independent living apartments, meals available upon request, and a VNA office facility on-site. The living units are compressed into one building. The VNA provides home nursing care as needed by residents versus nursing home care. This is the trend in senior housing because very few can afford nursing home costs. The typical resident profile at The Pines is a 74 year old, widowed female though there are some younger and older residents (must be at least 55 years old to live there). There are 185 units at The Pines and presently 210 residents (1.13 people per unit). Thirty percent of the residents have two bedroom units, but the number of couples living there is only 10%. Half of the residents have cars, but only half of those with cars use them. There is public transportation readily available. The buildings are on four acres. The entire site is eight acres. Mr. Giebink stated the proposal for Shelburne is very similar to The Pines.

 

There was mentioned of density being one person per 1,000 s.f. of gross land area. Dean Pierce pointed out Mike Munson suggested 3,500 s.f. per unit for elder housing (1.2 people per unit) or approximately 2,900 s.f. of land per person. For elder care facilities, 750 s.f. per person is recommended. John Giebink reiterated there is more traffic impact with elder care facilities due to the need for staff on-site.  There was further and lengthy discussion of elderly housing, elder care facilities, and ESSH housing.  The Planning Commission was divided on the issue of density. Tucker Holland, Kay Kraushaar, and Peter Gibbs spoke in support of 1,850 s.f./person, Dick Elkins wanted greater than 1,850 s.f., and Reg Gignoux, Kate Lalley, and Claude LaPierre supported 1,000 s.f.  Connecting buildings was not an issue.

 

Dick Elkins opposed granting a bonus that will increase density for land that is not developable. Tucker Holland spoke in favor of bonuses for affordable housing, but not for using undevelopable land in the calculation. Reg Gignoux spoke in support of a bonus for land being made available to the community to enjoy which would not otherwise be available. Another benefit is protection of water quality by not having development near waterways.  Affordable housing will create the community fabric desired in Shelburne, stated Mr. Gignoux. Kay Kraushaar was not in favor of density bonuses. Kate Lalley agreed allowing density for something that provides for open space is admirable. Peter Gibbs stated the bonus must be based on total developable land and at least 35% of the developable land must be dedicated to open space. There was continued discussion of land being given to the town which can then put on restrictions for conservation purposes and to maintain wildlife corridors.  The land that is given to the town should be of meaningful ecological and recreational value. Also, the land should not be in piecemeal portions that when added together equate to the total percentage of open space. Tucker Holland spoke in favor of density bonuses for affordable housing, but did not know the appropriate percentage (10% was mentioned), and the affordability should be tiered.  Dick Elkins suggested with the development proposed by GMDG in Shelburne a one unit bonus for each acre of developable land could be given and one unit of single family, one unit of multi-family, and one unit of affordable housing built.  This would yield an eight unit bonus on the Thomas property and a 22 unit bonus on the entire parcel while still maintaining the mobile home park. If the 25 unit affordable housing park is removed, the developer will have to replace the affordable housing somewhere else in town.  Dean Pierce recalled past discussion of density calculated on a gross area basis. PUD density bonus is done on a gross basis. Charlie Brush mentioned inclusionary zoning versus density bonus. Kay Kraushaar again referred to the 2002 town survey results where over half the respondents felt the town was growing too fast.  Mr. Brush noted with the GMDG project the growth would occur over five years, not all at once.  There was further discussion of the issue of density bonuses and incentives for affordable housing. The consensus of the Planning Commission is a 15% bonus equally distributed across the three affordable housing tiers as mentioned in the Town Plan.

 

Section 1970.8 – signs in the residential district allows 10 s.f. signs.  Signs for integrated agriculture uses in the residential district could fall under farm signs which allow 16 s.f. signs. Following further discussion the Planning Commission agreed integrated agriculture needs to be added to the list of conditional uses in the residential district existing as of the effective date, and signage for integrated agriculture shall be 16 s.f.

Dean Pierce will draft some language.  There was also discussion of the location of the sign in the residential district (Page 41, sign section, item #5). Language will be added to state “or where the distance between the edge of the right-of-way and the edge of the travel way exceeds 30’ except in the Shelburne Falls, Village District, and Residential District south of Bostwick Road”.

 

Next work session: Wednesday, 12/19/07, at 5:30 p.m.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

In the absence of Tucker Holland, Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.

 

 

Deferred until the next meeting.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

Dean Pierce reviewed discussion about a 100’ buffer along the LaPlatte River, McCabe Brook, and part of Monroe Brook. Shelburne is subject to federal clean water permitting requirements so it is proposed to add a 50’ buffer on the north branch of Monroe Brook. Bernie Gagnon will do an analysis and a plan to meet the federal requirements. The Planning Commission agreed with the 50’ buffer on the north branch of Monroe Brook with the understanding this could change after the analysis and recommendations from Bernie Gagnon.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed draft language regarding cutting within the 125’ setback fifty feet from the house foundation in the Lakeshore Overlay district. There was discussion of decreasing 50’ to 25’ and returning the area to vegetation with plantings rather than lawn. The Planning Commission was firm the area must be restored.  Language was added in the last sentence of Section 1760.1(d) to state property owners shall restore the area with plantings and maintain as open space or managed space. There was mention of maintenance or repair to existing structures. The draft language does not afford further encroachment, however, the property owner in consultation with a certified landscape professional can submit a landscape plan so maintenance/repairs can be done.

 

Docks within the 125’ setback were discussed. Dean Pierce cautioned against structures below the 95.5’ contour because this area is under the jurisdiction of the state as public water. State regulations must be met. The state will refer to a town’s regulations.  Modified language for Section 1750.2(f) was reviewed pertaining to new structures within the 125’ setback. There was mention of changing the language saying “50’ from the shoreline” to “50’ from the 98’ contour”.  Mr. Pierce will verify whether the definition of shoreline and the 95.5’ contour are the same. The word “shoreline” was used because that is where a dock would start over the water. Peter Gibbs observed using the word “shoreline” makes the town regulation match the federal regulation.  There was discussion of a dock walkway being six feet wide and using an area figure (square footage) for a dock rather than a length and width restriction. Reg Gignoux pointed out docks must be removed from the water at the end of the season. Claude LaPierre suggested the walkway going to the end platform of the dock should not exceed the square footage of the dock platform.  It was suggested Shelburne Shipyard and The Dock Doctor be contacted for typical dock size information.  Following further discussion the Planning Commission agreed with language stating “...no more than 50’ from the shoreline and constituent walkways are no wider than six feet.”

 

Reg Gignoux announced he received a letter from Dan Hassan concerning definitions for elder housing.  Dean Pierce confirmed the Planning Commission continues to support 1,850 s.f. per ESSH unit or approximately 1,610 s.f. per person.

 

Dean Pierce reviewed language to be added to address exceptional affordable housing and open space conservation (Section 841.1) relative to density bonuses.  The language addresses levels of affordability and complies with the bylaw which is based on 80% of gross annual income. There was discussion of inclusionary zoning for affordable housing which would apply across the entire town. The cost to implement would be higher density.  Reg Gignoux commented bonus densities give an incentive to developers to do affordable housing. The bonus must be significant enough to be worthwhile. Dick Elkins mentioned inclusionary zoning in larger development projects. Dean Pierce urged examining the ramifications of inclusionary zoning which is not recommended in only one district. The consensus of the Planning Commission is not in support of inclusionary zoning. Peter Gibbs noted the definition does not specify mixed use. The project must be a mixture of residential and nonresidential uses. Mr. Pierce noted this is specified in the PUD residential section and the PUD mixed use section of the regulations.  There was general agreement to a 15% cap on density bonus of which two-thirds are affordable units.  Dick Elkins spoke in support of a lower cap. There was continued discussion of density. Reg Gignoux pointed out the town is 65% built out at present. Mr. Elkins stated the townspeople want to slow growth because of concern about increasing density and impact on the town. The density is being increased in the Village Center District and not being decreased in other districts. Dean Pierce said this matter was addressed to a minor extent.

 

Dick Elkins noted parking in the village is a problem, and suggested GMDG be asked to set aside a half acre of land behind the Shelburne Inn in exchange for the density that would have occurred on the half acre being applied elsewhere in the project. The half acre could become public parking.  Dean Pierce confirmed density can be transferred in a PUD.

 

Dick Elkins stated Shelburne does not have a 35’ ladder and depends on South Burlington for their truck. South Burlington’s truck at present is under repair. Shelburne uses a 28’ ladder. Mr. Elkins questioned why a developer would want windows on their building higher than the town’s tallest ladder. If the town is to allow the building height, the fire department should have the equipment necessary to address a fire or false alarms in the building. Mr. Elkins felt there are many outstanding questions to answer before making a decision on building height. It was noted the developer’s request is to allow greater building height with the 200’ setback from the public road/highway.  Dick Elkins expressed concern about a building greater than 35’ in height being located behind the church which is the most attractive building in the village center.  Peter Gibbs suggested maintaining the definition for building height, but increasing the height in the village center to 45’. Dean Pierce suggested 35’ in height measured from the existing grade to the mid-point of the eave and ridge and 45’ measured from the same in the village center. The Planning Commission agreed with the vertical measurement being the average between the peak and the eave. Dick Elkins suggested the fire department submit a letter saying there is not a concern about getting people out of a building of this height with existing equipment.  Reg Gignoux outlined the goals are increased density, avoiding monolithic looking buildings, and encouraging pitched rather than flat roofed buildings. Measuring from the mid-point is a good concept, but all buildings in a complex could be built to the same height. There would not be the variability of height.  Kate Lalley suggested looking at roof pitches, scales of buildings, and setbacks as a way to get variety. Dean Pierce added structures could be subject to the design review process.Reg Gignoux urged thinking to the future for the entire village district, not just one project. Think about what the town should look like in the future and avoid spot zoning. There was continued discussion of building height and denser development in the village center. There was agreement the definition should include measurement from the finished grade to the mid-point of the eave and ridge up to 45’ on a fire protected structure, and a structure greater than 35’ in excess of the 200’ right-of-way on Route 7 is applicable only to mixed use/PUD in the Village Center District.  Dick Elkins expressed concern about buildings greater than 35’ in height on Falls Road. There was mention of demolishing a building and replacing it with one of greater height. The bylaws need to be strengthened on this point.  Kate Lalley felt the 200’ setback could be excessive. Mr. Elkins noted 200’ is the setback on Route 7, and reiterated his concern about large buildings overshadowing the church.

 

The Planning Commission agreed to the addition of language indicating ground level connections, elevated covered walkways or an underground tunnel are acceptable.

 

Dean Pierce briefly reviewed the status of various items in Article XIX, noting there are no changes to the integrated agriculture text. Mobile home parks were added to the bylaw at a gross density of 8,000 s.f.  Section 1930.9 will be updated to reflect non-redevelopment PUD in the village.  Examples of what is customary in residential areas should be included in the bylaws with regard to home occupations and garage sales. Lighting was pulled out of the performance standards and handled in another section. Regarding parking, the DRB may modify the number of spaces up to 20% and can go as high as 50% in the Village Core Overlay District. There is no change to handicap parking regulations. Language was clarified for temporary sign permits to specify the display time is consecutively calculated.

 

Dick Elkins spoke against drive thru services due to the extra pavement requirement, cars idling in queues, and defeating the purpose of encouraging customers to come in and shop. Reg Gignoux noted drive thru pharmacy service is good for older people. Dean Pierce noted drive thru service was removed from the bylaws except for banks.

 

There was further discussion of the parking waiver and allowing a waiver of 50% in all districts to avoid building unneeded parking. There is concern that if the parking is waived the developer will build a larger structure and then the building use and the parking need could change. Dick Elkins suggested the waiver be 30% and not necessarily require the parking be built, but planned for when needed in the future.  Following further discussion, the Planning Commission concurred with a 50% waiver for parking.

 

Dean Pierce noted a certificate of occupancy application for other than one or two family dwellings require as-builts. Plans will likely be submitted on DVDs. Dick Elkins observed the fire department will be able to view the as-builts and know the building layout prior to fighting a fire in the building.  Section 2010.1 was clarified to state construction cannot begin until a state waste water permit has been issued.

 

There was discussion of the density for assisted living units being one-fifth of the square footage for independent living facilities. Dick Elkins felt the square footage per person figure should be increased. There was also discussion of the continuing care retirement community and the square footage per unit figure.

 

There were no further comments or discussion.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.