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, Jack Morrish, Barbara Morrish, Pat Seal, Pat Morrow, Colleen Haag, Craig Smith, Tom Moreau, Dorothea Penar, Peter Penar, Diane Rooney, Victoria Carleton, Lois McClure, Darlene Sweeney, Jeremy Matosky, John DuBrul, III, John Giebink, Cheryl Roberts, Paul Boisvert, Ellen McShane, Marge Sharp & Danielle Frawley (Shelburne News), and others.

Mr. Talley, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.

MOTION by Mr. Roesler, seconded by Mr. Pudvar to enter executive session for the purpose of discussing real estate transactions and to invite the Town Manager and representatives of the Vermont Land Trust.   VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

The Board exited executive session at 7:17 p.m. and Mr. Talley reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

 

DEFER: Agenda Item #6 - Consider request from Beavercreek Homeowners Association for authorization from Shelburne voters to issue bonds for the purpose of financing the reconstruction of Beavercreek Road.

ADD: Agenda Item #4.a – Report from Peter Penar on visit with the Earl of Shelburne.

ADD: Item #9.b - Resolution to authorize Public Works Director to sign the Bay Road sewer project agreement.

ADD: Item 9.c - Execute bond document for financing the Longmeadow sewer plant project.

 

Craig Smith submitted a written statement regarding Shelburnewood Mobile Home Park and expressed concern that the process/timing of approval for adoption of the amended zoning bylaws could be too late for the proposed Shelburnewood affordable housing project. The option to purchase the park will expire next summer (2009). Mr. Talley explained the goal is to complete compilation of public and Board comments/input by the next Board meeting. If there are substantive changes then the draft bylaws will return to the Planning Commission. The timeline for Planning Commission review and response is not known. Once the Planning Commission process is complete the draft bylaws will return to the Selectboard for review and/or action.

 

Victoria Carleton, Shelburnewood Association, thanked everyone for their hard work, and gave a brief history of the proposed Shelburnewood plan as presented by Green Mountain Development Group. The plan includes affordable housing for all stages of life. There is concern about the expiration date of the purchase option in 2009. The Selectboard, Development Review board, and staff can help make the project happen, urged Ms. Carleton.

Peter Penar, resident, presented photographs of his trip to the United Kingdom to visit the Earl of Shelburne on 4/15/2008. The Earl was presented an invitation to Shelburne, Vermont in 2013 for the 250^th celebration of the town. Mr. Penar thanked the town for supporting his trip.

 

Tom Moreau, CSWD General Manager, reported two bio-solids contracts with member towns ended in 2008. Three options to deal with bio-solid materials were outlined in a memo, dated 8/6/2008. An RFP will be sent out in the next two months for longer term management of wastewater treatment plant sludge. CSWD was able to negotiate the request from the Shelburne Town Manager eliminate the minimum load charge. Mr. Moreau explained the district is investigating new technology to reduce the amount of water in biosolids from 80% to 50% water.

 

Ms. McKnight provided copies of her comments for public review during discussion of Articles IX – XII. The Board received the comments previously.

 

Mr. Talley observed the Shelburne Falls area as noted in Sections 920.4 and 920.5 is a compact district, and questioned if Elder Care with 25 units is in scale to the area. The Board agreed 25 units is too large scale for the Shelburne Falls Mixed Use District. Mr. Talley also questioned if Section 920.6 - Bed and Breakfast with two rooms (for rent) is overly restrictive.

 

Regarding Section 930, Ms McKnight pointed out there is an assumption that Elder Housing will require no special services. Ms. McKnight asked why a 5,000 square foot dwelling unit should be treated the same as a 10,000 square foot multi-family apartment dwelling. A 3,500 square feet per structure is too dense. Density and consistency, which should be the same with other districts, are two issues of concern. Dick Elkins explained previous zoning was written as 3,500 square feet and that was used for elderly housing before 1997. Dean Pierce pointed out that zoning gives a density bonus for development of elderly housing. Elderly housing has a lower impact on services. Additionally, multi-family housing requires more land. Elder care facilities (assisted living) require one-fifth the land area needed for elder housing, said Mr. Pierce. Ms. McKnight questioned differentiating from multi-family apartments and if there is hard evidence elder apartments use fewer services than multi-family units when residents have at least one parent and one or two children. Mr. Talley noted the Shelburne Falls District is identified as a nucleus for a neighborhood “feel”. Residents of the district have expressed concern about expansion of businesses in the neighborhood.  Following further discussion the Board determined the Planning Commission should reconsider the mix of residential and businesses allowed in the district. Bill Smith said other business uses as noted in Sections 920.7 and 920.8 are of concern to residents. Businesses already in the district include a small market, a hair salon, art shop, and architect. An engineering firm recently moved out of the area.

 

Barbara Morrish, resident, stressed the area is very residential. There is concern that more businesses will bring more noise, traffic and safety issues. There was discussion of current permitted uses on a small scale and conditional uses. There is concern related to the breadth of allowable uses in the village and a suggestion that uses be better defined. The list of permitted uses was read. Following further discussion the Board determined the Planning Commission should review the Shelburne Falls Mixed Use District relative to scale of development and the potential to reduce the number of allowable uses.

 

Regarding side yard setbacks, Mr. Talley pointed out a 30’ side yard setback is required for a 120 square foot accessory building yet there is only a 10’ side yard setback in other districts. The Board agreed side yard setbacks should be consistent within the Village District.

 

Mr. Roesler felt the Planning Commission should review front yard setback formula requirements in the Mixed Use District because as proposed the front yard setbacks are un-workable. Ms. McKnight agreed there should be smaller setbacks for structures along Shelburne Road to allow maximum advantage for transit service versus buildings set farther from the road. CCTA Planning supports smaller setbacks. There was mention of the language in the Purpose section. Mr. Smith agreed language under General Purpose Mixed Use needs editing. The language should embrace and encourage what is wanted for businesses in the district.

 

Mr. Smith noted construction related services and agricultural uses are current uses not included in the new version of the text. Some agricultural activities do not need to be included. Pharmacies with drive-up service make sense. Dean Pierce stated the Planning Commission did not embrace drive-up services. Following further discussion the Board agreed the issue of drive-up service will be at the discretion of the Development Review Board provided restaurants are excluded.

 

Regarding Sections 1020.2 and 1020.3 - Conditional Uses, Ms. McKnight questioned if a distinction between old and new mobile home parks is necessary. Dean Pierce stated there are other mobile home parks on 10 acres of land (Penny Lane) so different definitions are needed. Brian Precourt pointed out Section 820.22 in the existing regulations leaves the determination up to the Development Review Board. Dean Pierce noted there has been a problem with using a “similar” case for larger versions of permitted uses. Mr. Smith stressed the town should clearly define what is wanted for uses.

 

The Board concurred with Ms. McKnight’s written comments on Sections 1020.5-1020.8 - Conditional Uses relative to Elder Housing, Elder Care Facilities, Continuing Care Retirement Facilities, and Nursing Homes.

 

Regarding Section 1021.5 – Retirement, Mr. Talley noted that a development with 250 independent living units as a conditional use will need 43 acres of land. Mr. Pierce replied the language is not clear in the section. Minimum lot size for use is wanted.

The Board asked that the Planning Commission revisit Section 1021.5.

 

Regarding Section 1021.17, the Board questioned precluding vehicle sales/repairs.  Mr. Pierce explained the use was removed from the regulations in 1999 because the town did not want Shelburne to look like the development on Shelburne Road, South Burlington. The Board asked the Planning Commission to reconsider vehicle sales and repairs, and to put a cap of 75 children on the size of daycare centers to be consistent.

 

Mr. Talley asked why Commercial/Industry – South Mixed Use is treated differently than Commercial/Industry – North. Champlain Lanes in Commercial/Industry – North pre-existing and is made non-conforming. Mr. Smith suggested using a limit on allowable impermeable surface as a way to limit types of businesses, such as car dealerships. Ms. McKnight stressed deliberately creating nonconforming uses should be avoided. The Board asked the Planning Commission to make the Village north and Village south consistent.

 

Regarding Section 1030.1 - Dimensional Requirements related to lot size, Ms. McKnight said it should be the same for multi-family and elderly housing. The present language is skewed toward elderly housing. There are many other housing needs besides elderly. Another issue is lack of consistency between all districts.

 

With regard to Section 1030.2 - Yard Requirements, the Board asked for clarification of the “front yard” definition. It appears not all ‘front yards’ along Shelburne Road are sited on Shelburne Road. Ms. McKnight asked for more information regarding “on the ground” impact with the minimum setback formula. The Planning Commission needs to reconsider setbacks. The Board outlined concerns that included creation of nonconforming structures, dimensions, and setbacks that limited what could be done (formula that determines the allowed scale of the structure).

 

Regarding Sections 1030.3.c, d and e - Design Credit, the Board felt this was too specific in mandating. The Board questioned design review related to restriction of design façade and the relativity of 90’, 120’ and 150’ setbacks to design. Ms. McKnight suggested there be a design review body other than the Development Review Board.

 

With Section 1030.5 - lot coverage maximums, the Board felt four acres may be inappropriate.

 

Regarding Section 1030.6 - Maximum Individual Building Footprint, Ms. McKnight reviewed concerns about limiting a building footprint to 10,000 square feet. Further study is needed. The Planning Commission should consider increasing the building footprint. Researching what is done in surrounding towns or if there is a model/system to review would be good. The Board asked the Planning Commission to consider more flexibility or increase allowable square footage.

 

Article XI – Commercial/Industrial District

The Board asked the Planning Commission to revisit Article XI relative to use in the Commercial/Industrial District, and to consider one district versus two.

 

Regarding Section 1110 - Permitted Use, Ms. McKnight pointed out six of eight permitted uses do not describe light industry. Dean Pierce explained originally the idea was that the north section would have more commercial and industrial businesses. There is question of whether north and south should remain. The emphasis is on the south district.

 

Regarding Section 1130 - front yard minimums, Mr. Talley questioned having a 60’ front yard setback minimum and why a side yard setback is necessary for all uses.

 

Mr. Talley pointed out Section 1210.12, Permitted Use, is identical to Conditional Use in #13. Clarification is needed. Mr. Pierce stated the word “accessory” to Conditional Use is missing and will be added.

 

With regard to Section 1220, Mr. Talley asked why the district is the only one with language on expansion of structures within a setback. Mr. Pierce replied the language was there previously and the Planning Commission made no changes. As well the language was not adapted to other districts.

 

Regarding Section 1220.1, Ms. McKnight stated motels are a permitted use. The district has one motel. More should be allowed, especially closer to the Shelburne Museum. Planning Commission feedback on this issue is requested.

 

With regard to Section 1240 - Coverage Requirements, Ms. McKnight commented on how generous lot coverage is in the district compared to the Mixed Use District. Mr. Pierce noted the matter relates to the Teddy Bear Factory, but can be further investigated.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Bohne stated the Historic Preservation Design Review Committee is looking at a portion of the Shelburnewood project. Currently the Historic Design Review District encompasses review along Route 7. Mr. Bohne suggested expanding the district to include the Thomas property. Ms. McKnight said her understanding is the expertise of the Historic Design Review Committee involves façade, building color, and architectural elements versus generic review. Mr. Talley suggested Ms. McKnight review Article 1500 (Purpose of Design Review District) for clarification. Mr. Bohne stated the committee reviews in the context of historic preservation as well as design layout and compatibility. Ms. McKnight suggested a design review board for more generic review. Mr. Talley commented it may be appropriate to expand the Shelburnewood project in the Historic Design Review District. The development will become part of the village core and be visible from Shelburne Plaza. Gwen Webster mentioned the Historic Design Preservation Committee is reluctant to look at the full Shelburnewood project because it is not in the district. Ms. McKnight expressed concern that expanding districts bit-by-bit sets the town up for ‘creeping’ district boundaries. The Town Attorney provided legal advice on expanding a district which does not appear to be as difficult as first thought. It was the sense of the Board that the district should be expanded.

 

Mr. Talley asked that the Board submit comments/input prior to the next meeting. The next set of articles will be posted on the agenda.

 

Deferred to a future date.

 

7.         CONSIDER AMENDING THE 2008 GRAND LIST DUE TO AN ERROR BY CORRECTING THE ASSESSMENT OF PAUL BOISVERT AND ELLEN McSHANE AT 743 BAY ROAD BY INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM $654,000 TO $823,600

Mr. Bohne briefly explained the error that was corrected by the Assessor’s Office relative to property owned by Paul Boisvert and Ellen McShane at 743 Bay Road. The property value was increased from $435,000 to $654,000. The new valuation is $823,600. Paul Boisvert and Ellen McShane, property owners, appeared before the Board to contest the revised property value. The 55’ of water frontage is across the road and not usable. Swimming in the water will make you sick. Mr. Boisvert placed a jar of lake water taken from the area on the table and gave the Board photographs to review. Ms. McShane said the assessment of $654,000 is acceptable. Mr. Talley noted the appeal period for this property starts again with the correction. The property owners can submit an appeal.

 

Mr. Talley signed the documents.

 

Mr. Frankenburg reviewed the process for property tax payers who filed the Homestead Declaration with the State on or before 4/15/2008. The town received notification from the State  in July of property tax adjustment amounts, if applicable to these accounts. These adjustments were reflected in the  July property tax billing. The town will receive notification from the State on September 15^th of property tax adjustments for property owners  who filed the Homestead Declaration after April 15^th .  Since this is after the town’s August 18^th payment installment date, these property owners would pay the August installment as billed in July (i.e. with no adjustment).  A revised bill containing the adjustment will be sent in September.  A property owner who filed their homestead declaration after April 15^th and was notified by the state that they will receive an adjustment requested that the Town apply the adjustment now so they could pay the  August installment reflecting this adjustment.   Mr. Roesler spoke against establishing a policy, expressing concern someone may take advantage of the town’s “good faith”. Ms. McKnight opposed a policy as well, noting the issue is due to negligence on the part of the taxpayer in the first place.  The Board took no action on the proposal.

 

 

The Board signed the resolution.

 

The Board signed the State revolving loan documents for the Longmeadow pump station project. The amount of the loan is $224,200.

 

None.

 

Mr. Smith suggested the Board consider an ordinance to limit the mobility of individuals convicted of sexual crimes against minors around playgrounds, schools, daycare facilities at a future Board meeting.  Mr. Pudvar also expressed his desire to have this considered.

 

Mr. Talley urged the Board to consider the appointment of a delegate to the VLCT annual meeting before the meeting in the fall.

 

The Board exited executive session at 10:40 p.m.  

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ann Milovsoroff, David Flagg, Jeff Jackson, John Ondovchik, Michael Serrano, Patricia Ondovchik, Alec Webb, Joe Perratto, Mark Crow, Danielle Frawley (Shelburne News), and others.

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

 

Add: Item 10.a – Appoint two members to the Emergency Services Task Force.

 

David Flagg, owner of a car dealership/repair shop on the South Burlington/Shelburne town line on Route 7, said he is exploring the possible purchase of property located partly in Shelburne and partly in South Burlington (Harvest dealership). Mr. Flagg has been in business for over 20 years. Mr. Flagg said he discussed the current regulations and proposed zoning changes with the Shelburne Town Planner relative to new car dealerships in Shelburne. The regulations do not allow new car dealerships (only pre-existing businesses).  Mr. Talley explained the Selectboard is in the process of reviewing all zoning regulations and discussing the Mixed Use District. There is some language that restricts car dealerships to existing businesses. The Selectboard has not yet sent a complete list of comments to the Planning Commission. Proposed revisions are in draft form now. There is a question of whether the pre-existing language is really necessary. The Selectboard cannot predict the reaction of the Planning Commission to the Board’s comments on the zoning regulations. It was noted Mr. Flagg is not a Shelburne resident. Mr. Flagg asked where he can submit his comments in the context of the restrictions in the regulations pertaining to his type of business. There are many vacancies on Shelburne Road now. The property for sale is a useable lot for the small dealership (approximately 10 used cars that are serviced and sold), stated Mr. Flagg, adding the lot is across from the current location of the business. Mr. Flagg will submit written comments to the Selectboard for the record.

 

The Selectboard interviewed Ann Milovsoroff and reviewed the candidate’s qualifications.

 

Ms. McKnight provided copies of her comments on Articles XIII through XXI for review by the Board and the public.

 

The Board discussed Section 1310.1 and 1310.2 relative to whether single family home construction would be allowed in conservation easements. Mr. Pierce explained the Planning Commission addressed the issue in Section 1310.3. Regarding a question on registered daycare homes (Section 1320), Mr. Pierce noted the matter is covered by state statute. Mr. Smith suggested language saying “a licensed daycare home with more than six children is a permitted use…” There was mention of the term “truck gardening” which is a carryover from the previous regulations. A definition may be needed.

 

Alec Webb, Shelburne Farms, said that uses at Shelburne Farms are complex and there are some uses as proposed in the Rural district that will govern what can be done at the farm. Mr. Webb asked the Selectboard to consider more flexibility in the PUD language. Staff housing is an important consideration, for example. Mr. Pierce and Mr. Webb will collaborate regarding the needs of Shelburne Farms.

 

There were no comments.

 

Ms. McKnight asked that the word “scale” be added in the Purpose (to tie into Section 1550.3). The Selectboard expressed concern about the application and review procedure as outlined in Section 1530.3, questioning if 14 days is sufficient to render a decision. Mr. Pierce explained there is actually 45 days to render a decision. The strict requirement was put in place to give small projects a quick decision. Fourteen days is an achievable timeframe. Mr. Pierce suggested language saying “…wherever not required by a hearing, then 14 days may apply.”

 

Ms. McKnight suggested formatting the Village Core Overlay District the same as the other districts. Also a definition of “allowable uses” as mentioned in Section 1630.3 is needed as well as an explanation of the purpose of the district. Mr. Pierce replied that the zoning in the village has different lot requirements and minimal lot area for commercial uses. Per Section 1700.5 a house must meet the minimum lot size for a commercial use in order to be converted to commercial. The Planning Commission felt commercial use should be possible. A set of conditions was established whereby if the minimum lot area for a commercial use is reduced then the setbacks are reduced as well. A parking waiver was added. There is question as to what will happen if minimum lot size drops from 20,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Shelburne has designated the village center to allow income producing properties to be eligible for tax credits, which will be a defined area versus creating a new one. Staff will revisit the three village districts and “allowed” versus “conditional” uses. Mr. Talley pointed out Section 1640 should say “conditional use” versus “allowed use”. Ms. McKnight suggested using a consistent format throughout all districts. If there is a compact core district the requirements can be lower. A decision as to which type of use to encourage should be made.

 

The Selectboard expressed concern about property owner’s rights (the current regulations say “preservation of property rights of the Lakeshore…”). It is not clear what the language is trying to accomplish – protect shore views for lake users or preserve growth and vegetation within reason. Ms. McKnight felt the article should try to achieve a balance between the landowner and the lake user. It was noted ‘NVGD 29’ needs to be defined. Regarding boat ramps, Ms. McKnight suggested a permit only be necessary if a boat ramp is for commercial use. Section 1730 indicates federal and state permits are required for a launch ramp. There is question as to why a local permit is also necessary. Mr. Pierce explained the Planning Commission assumed a launch ramp would be the same kind of structure. There is not a definition of “ramp”. Ms. McKnight noted there is also not a definition for “erosion control structures”. Ms. McKnight asked if the use of riprap would require a permit. Mr. Pierce stated riprap is not considered a structure. The Zoning Administrator can grant permission for use per the ‘Excavation and Fill’ regulation. Ms. McKnight suggested the matter be further clarified. In Section 1720.2, Mr. Pudvar suggested “non-motorized riding trails” be shortened to “riding trails”. The Board asked for clarification of Section 1730.2 regarding marina minimum parking spaces of 1.5 for rack storage. Also, the word “undue” should be inserted before “water pollution”. In Section 1730.3, the Board suggested the language be changed to read “…Professional Engineer review the design…”, and add “…visually compatible in the opinion of the DRB.” In Section 1730.3(i) what is and is not allowed needs to be clarified. The Board requested the Planning Commission revisit language related to “stairs” and suggested language saying “…on the average no more than 12 inches above the existing grade.” The Board felt the proposed 200 square feet of lakeside dock is too small. “Section 1750” should be “Section 1750.3(a) through (g)”. Mr. Talley felt Section 1760 is not useful or necessary, and is subjective. Ms. McKnight mentioned in the State of Maine there are no restrictions on cutting bushes or ground cover along the shore line, but cutting trees of a specified diameter is restricted. The Selectboard asked the Planning Commission to revisit the goal of the section and how to implement.

 

Ms. McKnight suggested moving the definitions in Section 1870 to the Definitions Section (Article XXI).

Typographical errors need to be corrected in the final draft. In Section 1900.42(a), Mr. Talley suggested “who” should be identified, possibility the Development Review Board. Also, the section is too subjective. There was discussion of periphery buffers that do not allow parking within the buffer (ties into Section 1030.3, front yard portion of a buffer). Ms. McKnight recalled Brian Precourt identified several issues related to parking on both sides of an island, which seems to discourage parking. Regarding language relative to front yard setbacks not being used for outdoor merchandise displays, there is question if this meddles with merchandising for the small business owner. Ms. McKnight asked if complaints have been received. With regard to Section 1920.1(b) and 1920.2(c), the Selectboard asked for more clarification in the practical sense (i.e. provide a clear determination of whether the Harbor Hideaway building, for example, would be considered abandoned). Mr. Talley expressed concern about a percentage of land in a PUD subdivision being mandated to remain open per the town’s regulations. Mr. Talley felt this is confiscatory and infringes on a property owner’s rights. The Selectboard asked the Planning Commission to reconsider mandating conserved land on large acreages. It was noted Section 1930.6 needs to be consistent with Article X. Alec Webb will prepare language with the Town Planner to clarify the Rural Mixed PUD. Regarding Sections 1930.9 and 1650.1(c), clarification for consistency is needed in the Redevelopment PUD in the Village Core Overlay District relative to allowable uses and required square footage limits.  In Section 1940.2 it is unclear who monitors or provides enforcement relative to garage sales. Clarification is needed in Section 1960.1(c) on parking requirements for elderly housing. Also, the sign application process needs to be simplified. In regard to Section 1980.8 - accessory vehicle sales, Mr. Talley asked if there is control on parking personal vehicles for sale on public property versus private property.

 

Ms. McKnight asked for additional time to review and submit comments.

 

The following suggestions were made:

Section 2110.5, “…light manufacturing may include…” (delete the word “shall”); Section 2110.59, home occupation (keep the definition suggested by the Town Attorney); Section 2110.65, indoor movie theaters “for a fee” seems unnecessary;

Section 2110.58, height definition, revert to the previous definition that provides a certainty to building heights.

 

Selectboard and public comments will be compiled and finalized for Board review.  A memo with the comments will be posted on the town website.

 

Mr. Bohne gave a brief history of the request by Beaver Creek Homeowners Association for road reconstruction to town standard with the reconstruction financed by bonding through the town. Payments by the Beaver Creek Homeowners Association will retire the bond. There will be a priority lien placed on each lot in the Beaver Creek development. Ms. McKnight asked for clarification on the language stating “...anyone with interest in the property…” Staff will research the matter. Mr. Talley asked about potential impacts to the Town’s ability to borrow funds. Mr. Frankenburg stated the financing through a bond issue will not impact the Town.

 

 

Mr. Talley recused himself. Mr. Bohne noted the Board received an overview on the request to increase the coverage amount to $50,000.

Mr. Talley rejoined the Selectboard

Mr. Bohne reported bids will be opened for the Harbor Road Bridge project on 8/29/08. Construction will begin at the end of October. Harbor Road will be closed for several days and the contractor will stage the moving of water and sewer lines. The bridge will be replaced with a bottomless box culvert faced with rock.

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was recessed and Executive Session convened at 10:10 p.m.