MEMBERS PRESENT:      Bill Smith, Acting Chairperson; Tim Pudvar, Al Gobeille, Gary von Stange. (Absent: Robert Roesler)

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

OTHERS PRESENT:          David Epstein, Danielle Frawley (Shelburne News).

Mr. Smith, Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

The Board adjourned Executive Session at 7 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 7:05 p.m.

 

None.

 

None.

 

Mr. Smith stated the Selectboard contemplated mediation of issues between the Town of Shelburne and The Lodge at Shelburne Bay in Executive Session and has come to an acceptable settlement. Mr. Bohne explained the appeal filed with Environmental Court and two lawsuits related to one case. The Stipulated Agreement deals with the Town of Shelburne and The Lodge at Shelburne Bay application regarding density, the Field House, LLC decorative paver issue at Shelburne Meadows (McCabe’s Circle), the proposal by Field House, LLC to remove screening from the Field House building (will involve the DRB and Act 250), and leases with Field House, LLC that are in default (default amount will be paid in full). The Town will increase the height of the fence at fields 1 and 2 by four feet. $11,000 paid to Field House by VELCO is held in escrow and  will be applied toward the cost of the increased fencing.  Under the agreement no more than 220 persons will be allowed at The Lodge at Shelburne Bay. The Lodge at Shelburne Bay will be required to return before the DRB for Site Plan approval (Preliminary and Final Plat). The DRB will estimate the amount of parking allowed at the project. The agreement will be filed with Environmental Court with prejudice upon approval of the agreement by the Selectboard, advised Mr. Bohne.

 

MOTION by Mr. Pudvar, seconded by Mr. von Stange, to approve the Stipulated Global Settlement between the Town of Shelburne and The Lodge at Shelburne Bay and Field House, LLC, and to authorize the Town Manager to sign the Stipulated Agreement on behalf of the Town of Shelburne. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

The Selectboard interviewed David Epstein for the position on the Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission.

 

MOTION by Mr. Pudvar, seconded by Mr. Gobeille, to appoint David Epstein to the Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

The Selectboard thanked Mr. Epstein for volunteering.

 

The Selectboard signed the document.

 

 

Mr. Bohne reported on the following items:

·         Correspondence was received fro Sylvia Knight in Charlotte regarding herbicide application at substations relating to wetlands, which may leach into ground water. VELCO has stated that the herbicides used did not have a long life. The Public Service Board made a determination that the PSB has jurisdiction within a substation area. The matter is settled.

·         Shelburne Police Chief Jim Warden has announced that Shelburne placed first in the National Chief’s Challenge competition out of 600 police departments. The Chief will be invited to make a presentation at a future meeting.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Executive Session convened at 7:38 p.m.

 

The Board exited executive session at 8:45 p.m.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

 

 

 

Accepted,

 

 

For the Shelburne Selectboard

 

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.