ADMINISTRATION:    Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director; Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:       Michael Bissonette, John Giebink, James Bissonette, Charles Bissonette, Larry Williams, Rocko Antinozzi, Mary Jarrett, Bonnie Caldwell, Ernest Marcelino, Janet Marcelino, David Webster, Joyce Errecart, Gwen Webster, Dick Elkins, Jeff Jackson, Brian Precourt, Jeremy Matosky, Kay Kraushaar, Jay Carroll, Jim Carroll, Tom Moreau, Reg Gignoux, Bill Hoadley, Marty Illick, Louise Michaels, Terry Melincoff, David Marshall, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), and others. 

 

The Board adjourned Executive Session at 7:08 p.m.

 

Mr. Talley, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

 

Defer to the next meeting: Beaver Creek

Add: Visualizations by Civil Engineering – East Sight Lines to the Village Center

 

None.

 

Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director, reviewed the Board permission granted to widen the west side shoulder of Spear Street from Bishop Road to Irish Hill Road. Staff is seeking permission to look at the east side this summer.  The east side will look the same as the four foot wide west side. Drainage will be looked at and discussions with individual property owners will take place. There are issues to be negotiated with the golf course. Letters have been sent to property owners. The Spear Street travel lanes will not be re-paved. The project involves extending a 12” gravel base out from the road edge that will be paved from the existing white line.

 

Bonnie Caldwell, Webster Road/Spear Street resident, said she has not started negotiating with the town. The proposed plan will impact 18 compact car parking spaces at the golf course. The parking spaces are needed. Signage is needed for safety. The path should go through Boulder Hill where the town already owns the land. Shelburne should not become business un-friendly. Mr. Talley said his understanding is the parking spaces are not legal. Mr. Gagnon reiterated the intention to provide a four foot wide biking strip outside the existing travel lane. Jim Talley asked if there is a way to safely route pedestrians behind the golf course parking spaces. Mr. Gagnon acknowledged it would be nice if there was no parking to create a safety hazard, but the existing parking needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Mr. Frankenburg explained the proposal to apply for a $300,000 bond with a 15 year term to finance the shoulder widening project. Interest rates are estimated to be between 3.8% and 4.4% (favorable). Mr. Talley reiterated there is no intention to go to bond except as each project comes to fruition.

 

Mr. Roesler explained the Board will continue review of the proposed amended zoning bylaws, article by article, starting with Article X, Mixed Uses.

 

Larry Williams expressed hope that the setback and lot coverage issues of the new proposed regulations will be resolved. Mr. Williams stated there is no relief with the new regulations. All regulations look good on paper, but the Town needs to apply regulations to the properties. The properties developed along Route 7 are such because of the affects of zoning regulations.  The buildings are zoned farther from the roadway and that makes people walk 200’ back.

 

David Marshall, representing family and Rice Lumber Company, stated Civil Engineering Associates was hired by the 1950s lumber business. Rice Lumber campus is a hodge-podge of buildings. The proposed new zoning regulations will impose a front yard setback of 1002’ for a 580’ deep lot. A PUD plan would allow campus reorganization, but the new regulations take that option away. The existing lot coverage exceeds the proposed change to 10,000-15,000 square feet coverage (for a single building). Rice Lumber needs to get product to customers more efficiently in order to compete with Lowe’s or Home Depot. Language is needed in the new regulations to allow for renovation/reuse at Rice Lumber. More needs to be done. The owners cannot keep their business in town with the zoning as currently written. Mr. Marshall provided written comments to the Board for the record.

 

Jeremy Matosky, representing Auto Master, reiterated similar concerns to current zoning relative to how the new regulations address expanded use on adjacent property.  Dean Pierce indicated under the proposed new zoning this would not be possible. The door is closed to anyone new. The zoning concept looks at uses, for example, the nature of a quarry use would naturally expand. A business category of a use that would not naturally expand, such as a car lot, is excluded. This is the way the definition by law has played out. That is the Town Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Matosky pointed out it is the nature of a car lot operation to expand if more product or people are added. The business would need more parking. If Auto Master cannot expand an existing use then they will have to find space out of town. Ms. McKnight recalled at a past meeting Mr. Matosky indicated that the Auto Master setback would be 1,100’ from Shelburne Road. It was confirmed this is beyond the railroad tracks. The lot coverage formula put setbacks deep into the lot. The combined Auto Master lots are 13.5 acres.

 

Gwen Webster stated the new regulations make more properties more non-conforming. It is unfair and boxing people in. The formula is wrong if the Rice Lumber setback is 1,000’.

 

Ms. McKnight asked how many of the Route 7 properties will become non-conforming. Mr. Pierce stated there is a mapping of building footprints. Auto Master has a large amount of impervious surface and that drives the setback. The only way to get around the regulations is to merge the lots, and that increases the impervious surface. Ms. McKnight mentioned having different regulations for a car business. Mr. Pierce said an alternate formula was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration, but it was not adopted. Ms. McKnight asked what circumstances would allow a 15,000 square feet building. Mr. Pierce replied under a PUD, which could be as great as 17,500 square foot.

 

Charlie Bissonette, Dutch Mill owner, said he had the same concern as expressed at the previous hearing: a 250’ setback will be required for 3.99 acres of land with 505’ frontage. Mr. Bissonette said he cannot understand why the tax assessor increases the property assessment each year when it is a worthless property. Mr. Bissonette said he needs relief after 40 years in business in Shelburne and because the business is his retirement.

 

Terry Melincoff, Reel Hospitality representative, stated for the record that the new zoning is a hardship on land owners. Mr. Melincoff said his property is small property and the proposed setback will infringe on the property. The Board should reconsider setbacks.

 

Brian Precourt noted that Article XIX, Section 20.2.b limits what the Board can approve if a non-conforming structure encroaches on a front yard, but can allow expansion to the side yard if there is room. There are other setback regulations in the zoning bylaws that can be applied to non-conforming buildings on Route 7 in the Mixed Use District. Mr. Precourt read Article XII. The previous Zoning Board did issue some variances and denied some. For example, there was an elderly couple who applied to renovate their home so they could stay in the house. The Zoning Board had to deny the application and the couple could not expand. The Development Review Board has not been in operation long enough to know how the DRB will handle a variance. Section 1230 deals with structures with 100’ setbacks. Mr. Precourt suggested having fixed setbacks at 90-100’ as in the Commercial/Industrial District South. The Planning Commission wants better control over design.

 

Louise Michaels asked if there will be a discussion regarding a mix of rural and business uses on Spear Street. Mr. Talley pointed out on Ms. Michaels’ side of Spear Street it is residential and the other side is rural. Article III deals with the Rural District. Section 2010.5 of the zoning regulations addresses the matter. The state pre-empts agriculture uses. On the east side of Spear Street a large barn will be built for a horse stable. The town has no ability to regulate that. Ms. Michaels asked what affect widening Spear Street will have on the front yard setback. Mr. Talley explained the setback is measured from the edge of the road. Ms. Michaels expressed concern that she will look at businesses across the road (parking, delivery trucks, and such). Cars speed on Spear Street now and there are accidents with cars ending up on front lawns. Joyce Errecart volunteered to research the Agency of Agriculture permitting process and inform Ms. Michaels of her findings.

 

Mr. Roesler said he would like the Planning Commission to revisit the Mixed Use District relative to comments on applicable Commercial/Industrial South setbacks. Mr. Talley said he wants to compile all comments on the articles first then consolidate the public and Selectboard comments.

 

Ms. McKnight asked if there is a zoning map showing proposed setbacks and existing buildings. Mr. Pierce will provide the aerial ortho-photo that was used and the rhetorical formula that was applied to small lots or lots with large coverage that have setbacks beyond property lines.

 

There were no comments.

 

There were no comments.

 

There were no comments.

 

Mr. Roesler noted typos in Sections 1520, 1530 and 1550.

 

David Webster asked if there is a map of the overlay district. Mr. Pierce explained per state statute creation of a design review district requires studies first. The Planning Commission understands there are hurdles to change a district boundary. The Village Center District (Mixed Use PUD) raises questions of where design review issues apply. The Town Attorney says that the guidelines to change boundaries are not the same as to create. Mr. Webster said he agrees with Dorothea Penar, Design Review Committee member, who feels boundaries should be reviewed.

 

There were no comments.

 

 

There was brief discussion of the public hearing process, the suggestion to approve sections independently and send other articles back to the Planning Commission for further review, staff preparing motions for articles with no comments or the Board voting on all articles in one motion as recommended by the Town Planner, the suggestion to have one additional “summary” meeting, and general comments to be sent to the Board for review.

 

John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group, reviewed a pictorial showing existing buildings and sight lines along Route 7 from the Shelburne Inn to the Harrington House, and potential in-fill buildings. Mr. Giebink explained related graphs of proposed setbacks and building heights (40’ eave to ridge and proposed setbacks) as defined in the new zoning regulations.

 

Ms. McKnight commented she assumed the bulk and scale of in-fill construction to be small enough that existing buildings would block the view of the potential in-fill. Mr. Giebink replied the analysis showed 72% of existing building heights will block anything allowable. Ms. McKnight said the proposed ordinance will allow 80-100 units in one building. Height may not be seen, but the sides of the new buildings may be visible. Mr. Giebink explained regarding bulk/mass, it will not matter how wide a building is because the existing structures and vegetation will block the view.

 

The proposed fee schedule was reviewed.

 

 

Tom Moreau, Chittenden County Solid Waste District General Manager, said CSWD is seeking approval of the proposed FY09 Operating and Capital budget, which is up $1.5 million. Mr. Moreau reported on the following:

 

 

Bill Hoadley and Marty Illick, Lewis Creek Association, reported on the status of the LaPlatte River and Monroe Brook studies. McCabe’s Brook erosion problems in Charlotte and increased phosphorous levels below the LaPlatte River falls in Shelburne are hot spots. Educational outreach includes partnering with CVU, Rice High School and UVM to sample Monroe Brook and to share data. Mr. Hoadley suggested linking the study results to the Shelburne Town website (storm water page). Ms. Illick said the Lewis Creek Association would like authorization to form a committee to develop an educational scope of work. Mr. Hoadley and Ms. Illick will show their presentation at a future Board meeting.

Consideration of the request by Beaver Creek Association was deferred.

 

Mr. Bohne reported the VELCO project is on schedule regarding the closure of Bay Road on Monday, June 16, 2008. The road will be closed again on Friday, June 20^th.  A rain delay will postpone the project one week.

 

Mr. Talley noted the amended Regional Plan was received. Public hearings are scheduled on June 18^th and July 24^th.  A copy of the plan will be emailed to Board members for review and comment.

 

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

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Jim Talley (Chairperson); Robert Roesler, Bill Smith, Tim Pudvar, Jane McKnight.

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer; Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Tom Koerner, Dick Elkins, Jeff Jackson, Peg Rosenau, Tucker Holland, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kaushaar, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Gail Albert, Mike Precourt, James Barbour, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), and others.

 

 

Mr. Talley, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point, expressed concern regarding real estate property re-assessments and timeframe, especially at the front end of a recession and zoning change discussions. Mr. Jackson pointed out if the Selectboard approves the new zoning as proposed then his property immediately becomes non-conforming.  He stated his property assessment is a 95% increase, and that some properties are assessed using no comparables. Mr. Jackson said he was told by Assessing Dept. staff that regarding the data entered into the computer, it “didn’t matter, we know what the answers should be.” If the answers are known why use the computer, questioned Mr. Jackson.

 

Dick Elkins, Shelburne resident, said that he agreed, but as a realtor he has seen the effects of slowing sales of properties. The State of Vermont has failed to address how to assess real estate every year. It might be best to wait another year (before re-assessing properties).

 

There was discussion regarding lakeshore elevations relative to setbacks from the 98’ high water mark. Dean Pierce pointed out the change is from the 102’ elevation so there is a reduction from the current setback. There was also discussion of Section 17.50.3(a)(iv) - Erosion and the meaning of “visually compatible”. The Planning Commission discussed a definition of ‘visually compatible’ as per the Webster Dictionary as something that would be starkly different from what is natural, reported Mr. Pierce.

 

Jeff Jackson expressed concern regarding Section 17.50.2 relative to solutions to prevent the loss of a significant structure or erosion control if two criteria are not met. The way the regulation is written could make it cost prohibitive to take on a sea wall project. Mr. Jackson stated the proposed regulations came out of the Shelburne Point development project. The language proposed by the Planning Commission for the project was agreed to because it was acceptable for the property and property values. The conditions proposed by the Planning Commission have created a greater burden on the Jackson properties, continued Jeff Jackson, but would not be appropriate to apply to the whole town. “Visually compatible” is subjective and is more of an obstacle than needed. The Planning Commission tried to apply a condition of no seawalls with the Shelburne Point subdivision project, but this was unreasonable. A middle ground needs to be found.

 

Tom Koerner, resident and former Shelburne Zoning Board of Adjustment member, asked if any erosion control becomes a conditional use. Mr. Pierce replied no, it is explicit for seawalls, etc. The excavation and fill section will allow structures. This is another example of where there is no existing authority, but the Planning Commission felt there should be some boundaries, stated Mr. Pierce. It was noted erosion control never came up before the Zoning Board in Mr. Koerner’s recollection. Ms. McKnight asked for other examples of erosion control structures, excluding seawalls. Mr. Pierce said there is riprap. Seawalls are in the bylaw definition. Mr. Koerner said if the Town pursues conditional use for erosion control – conditional use must be reviewed using five criteria that have to be satisfied -aesthetic review should be revisited. Installing erosion control could be as high as $60,000 in costs.

 

Mr. Jackson noted that “overhang” conditions on the lake front banks are affected by the movement of water wake and trees, which adds to the problem. Selective cutting and removing weight on an overhang helps. Ms. McKnight said that Section 17.60 gives the owner discretion on what to cut. Mr. Jackson said there are different erosion control methods to use, and there are five conditional use criteria to meet. The issue is intent. The intent is to protect the property, but the Planning Commission concern/intent seems to be the aesthetics of looking at the land from the water. The Planning Commission handcuffed the Shelburne Point project with that intent. The matter should be put into Permitted Uses versus the Conditional Use process.  Ms. McKnight asked for clarification of permitted erosion control structures. Tucker Holland, Planning Commission Chairperson, explained that the Planning Commission was trying to create reasonable guidelines for reasonable people. The intent was to address abuses by the one “bad apple” that might come at some time in the future, not to be overly restrictive. The tree cutting issue at Pond Road is a case in point. The Planning Commission was told that more explicit guidelines will put the Town in a better position for enforcement to protect the town and neighbors. Jeff Jackson countered it is unfair to write zoning regulations to address the one “bad apple” at the expense of all others. There will always be those who try to get by the regulations. Regarding Section 17.00 - Purpose, in order to preserve views, for example, Shelburne Beach has 1800’ of lake frontage, four trees, two open parking lots and port-o-lets so Shelburne Farms has mostly open views, but then there are undeveloped properties that are treed and cannot be cut. No cutting seems to be spot zoning. If a property is already clear cut then there is not a problem, but if it is treed then there is no cutting allowed. There was an agreement with the Planning Commission for the Shelburne Point project and tree cutting, stated Mr. Jackson, but these types of restrictions should not necessarily apply to the rest of Shelburne. The regulations had said “preservation of property rights of the Shelburne land owner”, but that wording was eliminated. The language should be re-instated.

 

Mr. Jackson talked at length regarding the 100’ setback at the 102’ mark, which the Town Plan revisions changed to 200’ but this was not accepted by the Selectboard. The Planning Commission settled on a setback of 125’, but there is discussion the 100’ setback will be retained. Mr. Jackson cited Section 17.20.1, last sentence, “…plus the area between the ordinary high water and the mean low water line” noting the level is now going down to 93’. Also, in Section 17.20.2 - Permitted Uses language about non-motorized riding trails was added. Mr. Jackson asked if this will prohibit using a Gator vehicle on his property or prohibit a family on Dorset Street Extension from riding a golf cart in their meadow in the same Lake Champlain water shed. Horses can tear up a trail the same as a motorized vehicle. The language needs some clarification, stressed Mr. Jackson. Dean Pierce clarified that private use of a Gator vehicle is accessory to private residential use and the property owner is entitled to do this. Section 17.20.2 was not intended to address this type of use. Mr. Pierce read Section 17.20.1, and agreed that language could be added.

 

There was further lengthy discussion regarding erosion issues, bylaw definitions that clarify the low water line, and the issue of docks and cliff-side stairs. Mr. Jackson said that people put in docks to fit their needs and lake conditions. The new regulations limit what can be installed. Mr. Jackson asked about a dock on wheels or a floating dock needing a permit for installation on the beach.  There was also discussion of Section 17.50.3.b (“one foot above existing grade”) which is difficult to comply with due to the lake contours, and concern that the Planning Commission, following lengthy public debate, recessed and then decided to drop all new cutting restrictions without public input. Mr. Holland explained the Shelburne Point project review had been just completed and the Planning Commission felt that was a starting point. Issues brought up by Mr. Jackson were considered. The proposed changes were a suggestion that “a shoreline owner could cut up to 50 percent of on-shore screening” which would require a permit. There is no law that “you must preserve the shoreline”. There was discussion of the Natural Resources Commission’s concerns related to proposed shoreline regulations and why language drafted by Mr. Jackson that would clarify the proposed regulations was not included. Mr. Koerner suggested the purpose of Section 17 be reviewed in the context of other zoning purposes.

 

Staff will review the suggestions as per a memo to clarify language in Section 18.30.2. Mr. Pierce noted a 50’ buffer of the impaired Monroe Brook water shed was added to the Town map in response to water quality concerns and pollution sources. There is a possibility that fewer structures will be made non-conforming. Setback requirements will be in effect once the Board adopts the new regulations. A variance can be requested, but will be hard to grant.

 

Jeff Jackson noted that Section 19.4.2.a encourages parking behind or along side a building versus in front. Mr. Pierce replied this is not an absolute requirement.

 

There was discussion regarding PUDs in the Rural District, Section 19.30.3.c, that takes away the option for five to ten acre lots. Mr. Jackson asked if 50% of a 50-acre parcel would be deeded to a third party entity to “preserve” it.  Mr. Pierce explained the issue is open space that “should” be protected, but it is not mandatory to sell to a third party entity. There was discussion of state statute about PRDs that then become PUDs encouraging “clustered” development of large parcels, and Sections 19.5.2 and .19.5.3 that suggest the DRB can require pedestrian walkways, bike facilities and trails during the PUD review process. Mr. Koerner asked the Selectboard to review the insidious creep of public access into the subdivision/development process.  There was a question related to Section 19.10.2 and 19.00.1, deck applications under $1,000 and whether the deck falls under the Conditional Use review. Mr. Pierce replied site plan review is not needed for a $1,000 deck. The Board questioned the need for 10 pages of lighting regulations.

 

 

Tom Koerner asked if there was Planning Commission discussion of enforcement and/or lack thereof. Mr. Pierce replied that enforcement language was included in special zoning permits, such as Excavation and Fill, which was not from state statutes. Section 20.2 was a catch-all for seawalls, which has been processed into the proposed zoning amendments. Mr. Koerner suggested the Board re-think how to merge rules with the regulations.

 

Ms. McKnight expressed concern related to a change in the height definition. Mr. Roesler pointed out that there is no definition of a seawall. Mr. Talley noted a request was received to close the public hearing and at the next Selectboard meeting hear a presentation from the Planning Commission on the zoning amendments. The public could still make comment as well.

 

 

A copy of the proposal was included in the Board packet.

 

Mr. Bohne explained that James Barbour installed a private water meter on his water system. Town policy is to bill the 70 un-metered sewer accounts at a flat rate of 18,000 gallons per quarter. Mr. Barbour reported that his actual usage was 14,400 gallons, which would save him about $30.00 per quarter. There was discussion regarding a memo from Rick Lewis, Water Superintendent, related to issues for the Selectboard to consider before granting permission for use of a non-town supplied water meter, the business practice that all meters should be read by town personnel, future use of new technologies, such as “touch pad” readings outside a residence that would be down-loaded into the town computer system, and that there are 70 non-metered accounts to track. Mr. Smith asked if the Town should consider metering private water wells in the sewer district.

 

James Barbour thanked the Board for considering his request, and explained that his water usage was based on a town estimate. A standard water meter outside of his water softener was installed in February. The meter reading can be mailed in or town personnel can come to the house and read the meter. The meter is sealed. Mr. Barbour said he installed his own water meters when he lived in other places (New Jersey), and he paid the flat rate which came to $150 per quarter. Mr. Barbour said he is often gone for a month at a time during which time no water is used. Mr. Barbour said he is willing to track usage for six months and send the data to the town. Mr. Bohne noted the flat rate does not vary for any of the 70 accounts regarding the size of the houses or the number of bath/bedrooms. If the Board allows Mr. Barbour to install and read his own meter, then the same offer must be made to the other 70 residents. The same standard must apply to all. Mr. Bohne said a meter is provided to the resident and the residents must plumb it in. If the Board approves Mr. Barbour’s request then the Town ordinance will need to be changed.

 

 

 

There was discussion regarding a water leakage at the Caraher residence that resulted in high sewer usage bills, agreement by the Water Commission to waive the penalty on the sewer bill for Ms. Caraher, and repair of the situation that was complete and resulted in a significant drop in usage by 25 percent.

 

The Selectboard signed the documents.

 

 

There was discussion of the resolution for Board signatures relative to the Town Charter that sets a date and action for the Board to adopt the resolution, the annualized rate of 18%, the budgeted amount of $18,000 and the actual amount charged of $20,000 for FY07/08, Board concerns that there will be an increase of tax payment delinquencies due to higher home heating costs, and whether the 1.5% interest rate should be decreased for this year. Mr. Bohne explained that per the Charter the 8% penalty fee can be waived by the Board under certain circumstances. Mr. Talley pointed out that Shelburne grants a one month grace period for the interest assessment.

 

 

Mr. Bohne reported thank you letters for the social service donation by the town were received.

                                                              

Ms. McKnight reported that one of the Route 7 business owners notified her of a property owners meeting regarding the proposed mixed use district zoning regulations. A petition may be in circulation. Ms. McKnight commented on an earlier statement by Dick Elkins regarding deferring the effective date for property assessments due to the real estate market. Mr. Roesler asked if there is a problem with the town’s CLA (Common Level of Appraisal). Mr. Frankenburg stated the Town notified the state that reappraisals were on-going. There was brief discussion regarding Shelburne’s CLA which has dropped below 80%, completion of the grievance process for over 200 properties, a lack of comparables that should have been provided by the Town Assessor’s Office in determining property values, and the process for setting a tax rate (the Grand List is finalized and sent to the state by June 30^th, then the state calculates the school tax rate within five days). Mr. Bohne said a Board of Civil Authority workshop will be scheduled to cover the BCA hearing process.

 

Mr. Pudvar asked for an update on the Spear Street bike path project. Mr. Bohne explained that the west side of the road from Bishop Road to Irish Hill Road is complete and ready to use. Asphalt prices have risen and will be re-quoted for the east side. The Public Works Director will meet with Vermont Gas to coordinate the timetable to do that stretch of road.

 

Mr. Roesler asked if the Bay Road VELCO project is complete. Mr. Bohne replied that the paving scheduled for 6/27/08 is not complete as yet. New poles on Meach Cove property are in, but the poles for the Mark Knobb property are not installed.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.