    |
  |
        |
|
|
July 2008
SELECTBOARDMINUTES OF MEETINGJULY 8, 2008 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, Tucker Holland, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Brian Precourt, Don Chartraud, Bruce Right, Richard Williams, Robert Dilts, Dick Matheson, Ernest Marcelino, Sandy Marcelino, John Freeman, David Mellincoff, Lewis Hartwell, Melanie Hartwell, John Ondovchik, Pat Ondovchik, Michael Ondovchik, Charlie Bissonette, Jack Morrish, Barbara Morrish, Pat Seal, Bill Alexander, Frank Morton, Michael Serrano, Gabe Handy, Diane Handy, James Bissonette, John Sweeney, Michelle O’Brien, Joyce Errecart, Frank Thornton, Gerry Thornton, John DuBrul III, Shirley Priest, Joe Perratto, Mark Crow, Phil Carleton, Jeremy Matosky, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), and others. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Talley, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA None. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Concerts at Shelburne Museum Frank Thornton, Shelburne Road, expressed concern regarding the loud noise from the Shelburne Museum concerts. Mr. Thornton said the June 27th and July 6th concerts were excessively loud and rattled the windows in his house. Bill Alexander, Shelburne Museum neighbor, stated that the concerts last year were not as loud as this year. Mostly we can put up with two to three hours of the concert, but the last one started at noon and went on all day, said Mr. Alexander. Mr. Bohne noted that the state issues a permit for concerts unless a town has an issue. The Town has a police presence to address safety issues at the concerts. It was suggested that the Town invite the Stefan Jost, Shelburne Museum Executive Director, to a Board meeting. Zoning Change in Article IX Barbara Morrish expressed concern regarding a proposed change in the zoning bylaws (Article 9) related to the district from the Post Office to the LaPlatte River. Currently Civil Engineering and the store are two existing businesses in the neighborhood while the rest of the houses are residential. There is rumor that a house on Bacon/Falls Road may be converted to a business. This will impact the neighborhood with increased noise, traffic, etc. Dick Elkins, Planning Commission member, explained that new uses were added to the proposed bylaw. The uses could have an impact on homes in the area. Pat Seal, resident, said that Falls Road is 95% residential. The proposed zoning will allow mixed use for all sorts of inappropriate businesses. 4. CONSIDER APPOINTING LAURA GANNON-MURAKAMI TO THE WATER COMMISSION TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM THAT ENDS IN 2011 MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to appoint Laura Gannon-Murakami to the Water Commission to fill the unexpired term that ends in 2011. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 5. CONSIDER APPOINTING MICHELLE O’BRIEN TO A THREE YEAR TERM ON THE PIERSON LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, to appoint Michelle O’Brien to a three year term ending in 2011 on the Pierson Library Board of Trustees. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 6. CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING & DISCUSSION WITH THE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION re: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BYLAWS AND CONSIDERATION BY THE SELECTBOARD OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Talley gave a brief history of the public hearings held to date on review of the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaws, and procedure for speaking at the hearing. The Planning Commission was invited to give input on the proposed amendments. Tucker Holland, Chairperson of the Shelburne Planning Commission, and Dean Pierce, Town Planner, reviewed the Planning Commission’s reasoning relative to the proposed zoning regulations which will align with the Town Plan, implications and management of development, the intent to add clarity to the rights of property owners and flexibility for business owners, and setback formulas to bring buildings closer to roads. The intent is not to make existing buildings non-conforming. The footprint cap is not a lot coverage cap. A business has the option to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, which could increase a footprint by 50% via various mechanisms. There is question as to whether the cap is a concern of the setbacks. Mr. Holland and Mr. Pierce addressed public concerns that were expressed over the public hearing process as follows: · Parcels with 40% lot coverage can increase up to 50%, except for lots of four acres or more. Lot coverage allowance is related to water quality (water runoff of impervious surfaces). · Caps will create non-conforming lots, but it is not known how many lots will be affected. · In the Mixed Use districts there is concern for removal of authorized uses. Allowable uses are expanded in most all districts. The process to add a use could happen in three or four months versus waiting for the next five year revision cycle. COMMENTS Robert Roesler said his concern includes non-conformities created by the amendments, especially along Shelburne Road, which is a part of the economic engine in town. A balance of green space is needed with encouraging more business. The Planning Commission should revisit the proposed setback requirements. The document appears too complicated and detailed. The regulations should be simpler. Jeremy Matosky reiterated concerns expressed at past hearings related to potential development of AutoMaster. Without the ability to expand the business, AutoMaster may not be able to stay in Shelburne. The 17,000 s. f. building cannot meet the PUD criteria, and it is impossible (for AutoMaster) to meet Section 10.30.3 (Page 9) or be eligible to meet the alternate scenario. A significant amount of parking would have to be eliminated. The same applies to the landscaping. If there were mature 30-year old trees the trees would not be taken into account. Rice Lumber is another business that could come in for modifications. Rules forcing buildings to spiral out over multiple lots does not make sense. The Planning Commission is encouraged to review the proposed amendments again. Dean Pierce explained a data spreadsheet of parcels and assumptions. The planning consultant working with the Planning Commission tried to get the Planning Commission to consider alternative formulas by keeping things green and discouraging large structures. The consultant tried to have the Planning Commission look at formulas versus a PUD. Mr. Pierce presented a map illustrating geographic individual parcels if the lots were built to 40% lot coverage. The location of the setback line is an issue. In some instances the formula pushes the line back some distance, and in some cases the “green” line goes almost back to the end of the parcel. Several maps were drawn with different formulas (for example, using 0.004 versus 0.005). The Board may want to hold further discussion of the matter. The Planning Commission proposed 0.003. A developer will get a reduced formula if visual impacts are mitigated. Mr. Roesler requested that the Planning Commission review the flexibility between the three lines (as shown on the map). Mr. Smith commented the absolutes written into the amendments seem too absolute. Mr. Holland pointed out the Planning Commission spent a three year period on the regulations, and this item was one of the first reviewed. There was a consensus “at the time”. Mr. Matosky also asked about the decision to exclude expansion of properties along Monroe Brook due to state storm water standards. Mr. Elkins explained the intent is to encourage smaller lot development. Brian Precourt commented on setbacks along Route 7, noting the 0.003 line keeps being brought up as an alternate setback, yet the regulations read: “…it is for vacant parcels of land”. The 0.003 setback applies to five vacant parcels. Mr. Precourt asked if there was consideration by the Planning Commission of Route 7 south relative to Section 12.30 where there is a 100’ fixed setback. There are pre-existing structures on Route 7 south that are non-conforming. Mr. Precourt suggested having the same setback as on other portions of Route 7 where lot coverage increases from 40% to 50%. Less than half of the businesses are on lots greater than two acres. A PUD will only be available to half of the Shelburne Road parcels. Water quality is governed by the state and will be governed by storm water discharge permits. As it is, the Route 7 median has limited what business types can locate there. Dean Pierce addressed the issue of lot coverage on lots over four acres in size. There is no formula that says “this is the cutoff.” There are provisions to provide for greater opportunities for development in the bylaws, such as the 40% to 50% lot coverage increase, however, the alternate setbacks bylaw indicates state standards must be met. Regarding Monroe Brook, the brook is an impaired waterway. Volume and quality of runoff is tied to lot coverage. The more lot coverage the more potential runoff. Capping at four acres will not accelerate coverage. Forty percent worked in the past and should work in the future. Mr. Holland addressed setbacks in the Lake Shore Overlay District which did not change after debate. The setbacks are less restrictive than in Charlotte or South Burlington (both have a 150’ setback from the high water mark with a 100’ buffer). Stairs and docks are not regulated currently. In planning for docks the Planning Commission in developing the regulations was trying to prevent an unwanted situation that may occur. Regarding tree cutting, the Planning Commission tried to simplify the regulations, but there was not a consensus at the time so the status quo was maintained. Further clarification is needed, conceded Mr. Holland. There was further discussion regarding lake shore setbacks and using the 98’ mark versus 102’ (Mr. Holland said the Planning Commission will continue to look at the setback), and a question of differences between Shelburne Bay versus the broad lake relative to setbacks, erosion and vegetation conditions, slope, and rock formations. Thomas Koerner commented towns on the broad lake are less restrictive than Shelburne. Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point, opined pushing the setbacks farther from the lake does nothing for water quality. Language in the regulations related to docks is unnecessary since the lake is federal water. Mr. Jackson asked if he would need a permit for a boat lift. Mr. Jackson also read a portion of a newspaper article regarding tree cutting on the lake front, noting the Town Planner could not show him anything in writing in the bylaws. There was discussion of the Rural District and confusion with PUD requirements for subdivisions of four lots or more. Mr. Holland said that 10-acre lots are permissible. There was also discussion of encouraging cluster development on large lots, concern that a mandate of open space on large lots is “taking” of land (i.e. with a 50-acre parcel there is 30% dedicated as open space, but with100 acres there would be a set aside of 50% as open space), clarification of Class I and Class II wetlands, clarification of a PUD versus a PRD (it was noted there is only a name change - a PRD will now be a PUD), question of the number of developable parcels and wetlands relative to the tax implications (a parcel on Shelburne Point was taxed as if there were to be 19 lots, but when developed there were actually only seven building lots). Mr. Pierce explained the Planning Commission looked at several alternate zoning scenarios that included downsizing from five to 10 acres. The Planning Commission does not value property as does the assessor. A property without septic capacity is limited in the number of building lots on the parcel. Jeff Jackson asked for clarification of increasing setbacks from the perimeter of a property in the Rural District. Mr. Pierce replied a general characteristic of a PUD in the Rural District is increased side yard setback. The theory with a PUD is the developer can concentrate a “sandbox” in the middle of the lot to provide additional cushion around the perimeter. There is a perimeter buffer in the bylaw, and there is language allowing an existing structure in the buffer. Jeff Jackson asked why the choice of a five lot in the Rural District was dropped. Tucker Holland clarified the choice was not removed. In a larger scale development the plan would come under review by the Development Review Board as a PRD. Gwen Webster asked about the origin of Section 19.30.3 which was not in the previous regulations. Dean Pierce stated there was concern that development could not be done in five acre lots. The regulation preserves resources. The Planning Commission wanted to simplify the subdivision process for smaller projects (four acre lots versus five acre lots). The PUD process will preserve larger projects. Joyce Errecart reported a mixed use housing definition is included in new legislation. A private sector developer cannot make affordable housing happen, only a non-profit can. Ms. Errecart provided copies of the definition for review, and suggested replacing the current definition with the mixed income housing definition, adding the definition should be used for more than just the Village Center District. Work force housing is important for Shelburne. Mr. Holland said the Planning Commission heard public concerns regarding the potential for development in the village center. Staff was asked to look at an expanded Design Review District. The Town Attorney indicated that it may not be quite as long a process as first thought. Dean Pierce stated Shelburnewood Mobile Home Park is not in the Design Review District. The Planning Commission may find it preferable to change the boundary to simplify that section. The Development Review Board looks at scale and mass of buildings beyond review of a façade. Ms. McKnight expressed concern that one town committee (DRB) would have complete discretion on what is built, the number of units in a building, and the height of the buildings. Terry McKnight, resident, suggested before adjusting affordable housing definitions comments from non-profit organizations regarding impacts should be gathered. Mr. McKnight said he has developed affordable apartment units on small lots in Middlebury along with single family homes. The single family homes are difficult to sell. Mr. McKnight spoke in favor of smart growth regarding scale. John Freeman suggested looking at the size of a house in relation to the lot size. Encouraging smaller house construction makes sense in light of costs. Mr. Talley asked if the Planning Commission discussed energy efficiency as was debated in the Town Plan discussion. Tucker Holland confirmed the Planning Commission tried to encourage energy efficiency in the Town Plan, but did not make a mandate in the bylaws. The matter can be revisited. Bill Smith asked why drive-up windows are restricted (a drive-up window in a drugstore makes sense). Dean Pierce pointed out drive up windows are included in the definition of a bank. There were no further comments. Paul Bohne suggested staff could respond to Board comments on Articles I – VIII and the matter be added to the July 22, 2008 Selectboard meeting agenda. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaws. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 7. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM BEAVER CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ACCEPT BEAVER CREEK ROAD AND TO CONSIDER FINANCING THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTING THE ROAD WITH BOND FUNDS TO BE REPAID BY THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS USING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Mr. Bohne gave a brief history of the Beaver Creek development and private road serving the development. The Beaver Creek Homeowners Association is requesting that (1) the Town take over responsibility for maintaining the road system and (2) that the cost of necessary upgrades be financed by a bond issued by the Town and repaid by special assessments on the Beaver Creek Homeowners. The road must be built to town standards before acceptance by the town. If the project is financed by a town bond, a special assessment district will be created provided there is 100% participation by the Beaver Creek home owners. Joe Perratto and Mark Crow, Beaver Creek residents, said the Beaver Creek Association is seeking a favorable vote. The road is 24’ wide. Town specifications require 26’ width. There may not be a sufficient base so gravel will be added before repaving. Drainage and culverts are issues. It is estimated the reconstruction could cost up to $770,000. Mr. Smith asked if bond financing will obligate the Beaver Creek homeowners to repay the funds. Mr. Bohne confirmed this (and for a period of at least 20 years). There was discussion of a repayment schedule ($3,000 to $4,000 per year per home owner for at least 20 years). It was noted 22 out of 29 homeowners attended the last homeowners association meeting and voted in favor of the proposal. An instrument for guarantee of repayment is a lien on each deed that will stay with the land. Physical characteristics of the existing road include the length (.9 mile) with no curbs or sidewalk. The paving cycle would be every 15-20 years and there are snow plowing responsibilities. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, that if Beaver Creek Road is brought up to Town of Shelburne standards as approved by Paul Goodrich, Shelburne Highway Superintendent, and Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director, the Selectboard would approve a transfer of the road to the Town of Shelburne and accept a one-year warranty on the work offered by the Beaver Creek Homeowners Association. DISCUSSION: Paul Bohne said the homeowners association will do the work and town staff will supervise the work. Ms. McKnight asked if there was a unanimous vote in favor of the bond by the homeowners association. Mr. Perratto confirmed this, adding the bond was part of the vote for the road. Ms. McKnight asked if there are issues in securing a lien on a property if a homeowner used up all the equity in their property. There may be a variety of financial conditions since it is an established neighborhood, pointed out Ms. McKnight. Mr. Roesler suggested the Town require the homeowners association to pay for the road upgrade and then accept the road. The Town will not pay for a bond. Mr. Crow said the financial portion will be requested in a second motion by the Board. There were no further comments. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. Mr. Perratto assured the homeowners association is not trying to shift the expense onto the town. The association will finance the bond. A bond is the most equitable way to finance the work over time. Some property owners may sell their property in the next few years and they should not be burdened with upfront lump sum costs. Mr. Talley suggested all 29 homeowners sign a petition requesting the Town to take over the road. Mr. Perratto said regarding lien concerns the Town will be the superior lien holder. Mr. Bohne noted the documents have been sent to the Town Attorney for review. It was suggested the vote on financing the project be deferred to the next meeting of the Selectboard. 8. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THREE MONTH CONTRACT TO PROVIDE LIMITED POLICE SERVICES TO THE TOWN OF CHARLOTTE Mr. Bohne reviewed the draft agreement to provide three months of police service to the Town of Charlotte for traffic control. Emergency calls will be handled by dispatch and the State Police. The charge for the police services will cover incremental costs of the service (such as wages, benefits, and patrol car mileage). Mr. Talley asked if a third patrol district will be created. Mr. Bohne said a part-time officer will be specifically assigned to Charlotte at a cost of $22 per hour. The officer will work possibly two eight-hour per week shifts. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve a three-month contract to provide limited police services to the Town of Charlotte as circulated. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 9. CONSIDER SETTING TOWN AND SCHOOL PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the proposed town, school and local agreement tax rates. The school tax rates, which are set by the state will be $1.1590 for Homestead properties and $1.2207 for non-residential properties. The town tax rate will be $0.3216, and the local agreement rate will be $0.0006 (reflecting the exemption for qualified veterans). The total tax rate for FY08-09 is proposed at $1.4812 for homestead properties and $1.5429 for non-residential properties. MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to approve the town, school and local agreement tax rate for FY08/09 of $1.4812 homestead and $1.5429 non-residential as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 10. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE FROM CITIZENS BANK IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR 6 MONTHS AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 2.5% FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LONGMEADOW PUMP STATION MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, to approve the bond anticipation note from Citizen’s Bank in the amount of $200,000 for 6-months at an interest rate of 2.5 percent for construction of the Longmeadow Pump Station as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 11. CONSIDER DESIGNATING $18,900 OF THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE FOR HIGHWAY RETREATMENT IN FISCAL 2008-2009 MOTION by Ms. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Smith, to designate $18,900 of the General Fund Balance from the FY07/08 budget for highway retreatment in fiscal 2008-2009. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 12. CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2008 MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, to approve the minutes of 6/24/08 with the following correction: Page 7, Agenda Item #11, Vote on Motion - change to read “…3 ayes, 2 nays (Ms. McKnight, Mr. Pudvar)”. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 13. MANAGER’S REPORT Paul Bohne reported the following:
14. MEMBER CONCERNS Ms. McKnight suggested an MOU and police oversight may be necessary for noise related to the Shelburne Museum concerts or the Town may want to consider a noise ordinance. The letter from the Shelburne Museum Executive Director was addressed to the neighbors, not the Selectboard. Mr. Bohne stated the town needs to intervene before a contract is signed between the museum and artist. Ms. McKnight suggested the Shelburne Museum and Higher Ground be contacted before the next concert. Mr. Pudvar pointed out the Town approved $1.1 million for sidewalks and questioned why this money could not be applied to the Mt. Philo sidewalk project. Mr. Bohne said only a portion of the project was presented as a Town match to be included in the bond. 15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Pudvar, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. RScty: KFurr Accepted, For the Shelburne Selectboard ******************************************************
TOWN OF SHELBURNE SELECTBOARD MINUTES OF MEETINGJULY 22, 2008 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: Dick Elkins, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Brian Precourt, Charlie Bissonette, John Giebink, Charlie Brush, Robert Dilts, Lisa Perrault, Frank Thornton, Gerry Thornton, Paul Growald, Chris Preston (Shelburne News), 6:00 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PERSONNEL The Board met in Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. 1. CALL TO ORDER (regular meeting) Mr. Talley called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: Item 3.a - Reappointments to Pierson Library Board of Trustees. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Gerry Thornton, Shelburne Road, provided photographs of the concert stage area at the Shelburne Museum showing speakers within 900’ of her house. Ms. Thornton read a statement seeking action/relief from excessive noise by the Concerts on the Green series. A letter was sent to the Shelburne Museum, dated 07/09/2008, with a copy sent to the Selectboard. Ms. McKnight mentioned her effort to discuss the issue of high noise levels with the Selectboard and Town Manager and actively pursue some course of action (i.e. possibly a noise ordinance). Paul Bohne said the town has been in contact with Stefan Jost, Executive Director of the Shelburne Museum, and Higher Ground. Sound checks will be limited to one hour and noise levels will be monitored from Shelburne Road to determine if the noise exceeds 78 decibels. The goal is to stay at that level during concerts. Mr. Talley asked for feedback from the Thorntons on the noise level at the next concert on 7/26/08. 3.a. REAPPOINTMENTS TO PIERSON LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MOTION by Ms. McKnight, seconded by Mr. Smith, to reappoint Alice Wynn to a one-year term on the Pierson Library Board of Trustees. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. McKnight, to reappoint Lisa Perrault to a two-year term on the Pierson Library Board of Trustees. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 4. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES I-VIII OF THE SHELUBNRE ZONING BYLAWS Mr. Talley reviewed public hearings and joint meetings (with the Planning Commission) were held and the public hearing process closed with regard to the proposed amendments. Selectboard comments/concerns will be sent to the Planning Commission for the next draft of the zoning language. Ms. McKnight noted her written comments have been submitted. The Selectboard discussed Article I – VIII as follows:
· Article IV – Regarding conditional uses, Ms. McKnight noted farm produce markets, nurseries, and keeping farm animals were removed as permitted uses. David Webster requested the uses be retained in the Section 4.20.20, Agricultural Uses in the Residential districts. The Board agreed language regarding integrated agriculture should be a conditional use for farm produce markets/stands and keeping of farm animals. Accepted agricultural practices (more than four cows, horses, and such) in a residential district are permissible and not regulated by the town. Regarding nursing homes, Ms. McKnight expressed concern that in Section 4.20.7 nursing homes have no limit on the number of allowed units which is inconsistent with the language pertaining to elder housing (25 units) and elder care (up to 60 units). The Board suggested the Planning Commission consider increasing the two bedroom limit on Bed and Breakfast businesses and allow rooming houses in the Museum District and the Residential District. Ms. McKnight questioned why medical/dental offices are not allowed in the Residential District when professional offices are allowed. Following brief discussion of artist studios the consensus of the Board is to leave the proposed language as is. Mr. Pierce pointed out Section XIX has protections for small scale home occupations, which include artist studios. · Article V – Environmental protection rules require fuller citation for clarity. In Section 5.40, design review criteria language will be reviewed by the Shelburne Public Works Director. · Article VI – Regarding village residential, the Board asked the Planning Commission to look at the issue of number of bedrooms and artist studios (Section 6.20.7) relative to lot size and lot coverage. · Article VII – Regarding the Museum District, the Board asked that the Planning Commission consider a better definition for Bed and Breakfasts/Rooming Houses as allowed uses and broaden the use over other districts. · Article VIII – Regarding the Village Center, Ms. McKnight asked that the historical nature of the village center be included under “Purpose”. The Board concurred. Ms. McKnight expressed concern about uses under Sections 8.20.4, 8.20.5, and 8.20.6, and questioned if allowing a maximum of 100 units in a single structure is an appropriate scale in the Village Center District. Ms. McKnight suggested linking the number of units to a height restriction in the Village Center District. Mr. Roesler stated such a large structure is a conditional use that must meet PUD requirements. The development would be reviewed by the Development Review Board. John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group, said GMDG owns several large projects in Vermont. Building more affordable housing is in line with the Shelburne Town Plan. Mr. Giebink explained the proposal in Shelburne is for 40 units of elder housing and 80 elder support units versus 100 units. Residential units of 1,200 square foot had been proposed, but elder care assisted living space is based on the number of residents and land area. The project in Shelburne is 750 s.f. per unit. With assisted living residents there is less traffic impact (most residents do not drive a car). Regarding building size there are a number of projects with over 100 units. The Pines has 185 units of which 80% are affordable units. Building height is relative to distance from Route 7. Mr. Giebink read a section of the Town Plan on density of housing and affordability. Ms. McKnight opined density in the district if allowed should be allowed in all districts. Dimensional requirements for a single family home were done to encourage construction of small, starter homes. Mr. Talley expressed concern there is not enough diversity of affordable housing, such as affordable starter homes. The consensus of the Board is to ask the Planning Commission to consider the concept of dwellings relative to lot size less than that stated in the Village Center and to keep a 20% building coverage maximum cap. Mr. Talley expressed concern about a large building box with a flat roof, and suggested leaving language on maximum height and defining a weighted average maximum height. Staff will explore weighted average building height, a build-out scenario in the Village Center relative to density and building height, and energy efficiency design (not mandated) tied to state standards to get a mixed use density bonus. Mr. Talley will compile and email the comments and input from the Board. Articles IX – XII will be reviewed at the next meeting. 5. CONSIDER AMENDNG TOWN OF SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAWS BY MODIFYING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LOT #9 IN SHELBURNE INDUSTRIAL PARK FROM COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO RESIDENTIAL 1 AND MODIFY SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS IN THE COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DISTRICT Mr. Bohne reviewed the memo from the Town Planner to the Selectboard, dated 06/17/2008, regarding a change to the Comprehensive Plan map requested by Mr. Bahrenburg. The setback will change from 150’ to 50’. Queen City Printing is involved as well in the proposal. MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, to amend the existing Town of Shelburne zoning bylaws by modifying the zoning map to change the designation of Lot #9 in Shelburne Industrial Park from Commerce and Industry to Residential 1 and to modify the side and rear yard setbacks in the Commerce and Industry District, Section 1030.2 b, to “50’, however, with parcels adjacent to property or properties designated as residential under zoning bylaws in effect prior to 08/12/2008, the applicable yard requirement shall be 150.” VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 6. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ONE YEAR NOTE TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF A DUMP TRUCK FOR THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT FROM CITIZEN’S BANK FOR $99,000 AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 2.4% MOTION by Mr. Pudvar, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to approve a one-year note to finance the purchase of a dump truck for the Highway Department from Citizen’s Bank for $99,000 at an interest rate of 2.4% as presented. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The Selectboard signed the applicable documents. 7. CONSIDER AMENDING THE GRAND LIST BY APPROVING THE ADDITION OF THE VALUE OF THE VELCO LINES AND SUBSTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,116,400 AS CONSTRUCTED TO DATE Mr. Bohne stated the Selectboard can amend the Grand List through the Errors and Omissions process. VELCO filed a statement of value on equipment and facilities for construction to date (value of zero or up to $2,116,400). Ms. McKnight asked if there is a time limit for a decision and if there is a question of the value, suggesting an expert opinion may be needed on the value. Mr. Smith asked if the amount is based on a formula accepted statewide. Mr. Bohne explained there are specific values assigned. Utilities are unique. There are other utilities in town including Comcast and Green Mountain Power. Staff is recommending using the value amount filed with the Public Service Board. MOTION by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Roesler, to amend the Shelburne Grand List by approving the addition of the value of the VELCO lines and substation in the amount of $2,116,400 as constructed to date. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 8. CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2008 MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar, to approve the minutes of 07/08/2008 with the following additions/corrections: Page 1, Item, #3, 1st paragraph, last sentence - delete the word “the” between the words “invite” and “Stefan”; Page 5, 1st sentence - change to read: “Mr. McKnight stated that you can’t sacrifice scale to the idea of smart growth.”; Page 6, 2nd paragraph - add following the 5th sentence: “Ms. McKnight suggested that a lien on a home should be considered, and that the Town should seek an opinion from the Town Attorney regarding liens.” VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. 9. MANAGER’S REPORT None. 10. MEMBER CONCERNS None. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Real Estate & Personnel)/ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Smith, to recess the regular meeting and enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing real estate and/or personnel matters, and to invite the Town Manager to attend. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The regular meeting was recessed and Executive Session convened at 10:10 p.m. RScty: KFurr
January 2008Selectboard Meeting Minutes February 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes March 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes April 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes May 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes June 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes July 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes August 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes September 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes October 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes November 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes December 2008 Selectboard Meeting Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2010 |
