    |
  |
        |
|
|
January 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING January 31, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tucker Holland (Chairman); Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Kay Kraushaar, Claude LaPierre, Kate Lalley, Reg Gignoux. STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Pete Daigle, James Kaiser, Dan Chitwood, Bud Ockert, Genevieve Ockert, Marianne Nealy, Sharon Barton, Donal Curley, Paul Rosenthal, Hannah Rosenthal, Peg Rosenau, Michael Serrano, John Ondovehick, Paul Bohne, Richard Williams, James Bahrenburg, David McFeeters, Susan McFeeters, Jeff Jackson, Robert Platt, Thea Platt, Victoria Carleton, Phil Carleton, Cheryl Roberts, Clint West, Terry McKnight, Craig Smith, Pete Elias, Gwen Webster, Tom Koerner, Joyce Errecart, Charlie Brush, Jeff Provost, Brian Precourt, Tony Cairns, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News). AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO TOWN PLAN The public hearing on the amendments to the Town Plan was opened at 7:06 p.m. Dean Pierce stated changes to the Town Plan include correction to a property that was erroneously assigned in the adoption of the Town Plan in 2007 (the property was reassigned to the Residential zone) and a request to shift a property from the Commerce and Industry zone to Residential. There are no changes to the language in the Town Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Bahrenburg, Shelburne resident, explained his request for the change in designation on his lot on Northside Drive (by the Volvo dealer) from commercial to residential. The lot is bordered on the south and east by residential homes and a park, and bordered on the north by the Residential zone. There were no further comments. The public hearing on the amendments to the Town Plan was closed at 7:12 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS The public hearing on amendments to the zoning regulations was opened at 7:15 p.m. Dean Pierce mentioned the effort and work by the Planning Commission and a consultant to bring the zoning regulations into compliance with the Town Plan. Amendments to the regulations include modifications to the land use plan, updating uses, changes to dimensions, lot areas, setbacks, and building coverages, lighting, lakeshore areas, signs, overlay districts, and stormwater. ARTICLE I – PURPOSE Brian Precourt, Shelburne resident, asked about the definition of the term “grain”. Dean Pierce explained the term applies to building size in a district relative to architecture. Mr. Precourt stated the setbacks along Route 7 are 300’ back from the front and 100’ from the brook leaving no room for development. Side and rear setbacks on Shelburne Road are 300’. Most of the properties on Route 7 are two and three acres and 300’ to 400’ in depth. Properties will be impacted by the regulations. Building are being pushed far back so there is no fabric or continuity or grain along Route 7. The regulations are onerous as stated, said Mr. Precourt. Dean Pierce explained the setback requirement for Route 7 is now a formula. The regulation includes the formula. The zoning regulations propose alternatives (less demanding formula in exchange for design items, such as parking in the back) so there are several alternatives that result in reduction of the setback. Brian Precourt conceded a 90’ setback is reasonable especially if parking is in the rear. Mr. Precourt mentioned plantings along Route 7 and questioned why the town wants the screening if the developer is being asked to provide an improved design of their project. ARTICLE II – ZONING DISTRICTS No comments. ARTICLE III – RURAL DISTRICT No comments. ARTICLE IV – RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT No comments. ARTICLE V – STORMWATER No comments. ARTICLE VI – VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Clint West noted Bacon Street and John Street are no longer in the Village District if the boundary line is moved. Changing the boundary will make 75% of the houses nonconforming. Mr. West spoke against the change. ARTICLE VII – MUSEUM DISTRICT No comments. ARTICLE VIII – VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT Charlie Brush with Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG) spoke in support of decreasing the density for mobile homes to 5,000 s.f. rather than 8,000 s.f. There is no decrease in the density to reflect the size of a dwelling unit (if less than 1,500 s.f. for multi-family or duplex, then the land area density should be 5,000 s.f.). Also, the regulations show 1,800 s.f. for ESSH and it should be 1,000 s.f. to reflect occupancy which is not the normal density for a single family unit. Building height as proposed is fine, continued Mr. Brush. A bonus of 25% should be available with affordable housing because the criteria are so strict. Mr. Brush urged the Planning Commission to go to the Smart Growth website for information. Phil Carleton, Shelburnewood resident, spoke in support of the comments by Mr. Brush and GMDG with regard to the plan for the trailer park. Supporting growth and affordable housing in Shelburne means greater density. GMDG has a proposal for mixed use if the density is allowed. Terry McKnight, Director of Addison County Land Trust, spoke in favor of mobile home parks and developing affordable housing. Mr. McKnight expressed concern about changing zoning bylaws and focusing on one development with the developer suggesting the single family unit limits. Mr. McKnight felt 8,000 s.f. per unit seems to be a reasonable choice by the town, especially when thinking about the future. Legislative choice as to density bonuses should be made by the town, not the project developer. Mr. McKnight spoke in favor of Smart Growth, noting reasoned decisions about growth of the town and a project to fit in the downtown are a question of scale. Shelburne has made a commitment to affordable housing and should continue to do so. Tucker Holland pointed out density in the district has increased (56% for mobile homes and 33% for single family units) so the Planning Commission has tried to intensify use in the village core and promote smart growth. Mr. McKnight commented that the decrease from 1,800 s.f. to 1,000 s.f. for ESSH is a significant change. Mr. McKnight asked about building height. Dean Pierce explained the height requirement. The Fire Chief is comfortable with a building exceeding the height limit provided the building is a fire rated structure. The town currently has a 28’ ladder and uses the ladder truck from South Burlington when necessary. Paul Bohne mentioned the town’s capital improvement plan includes purchase of a ladder truck and expansion of the firehouse in the future. Richard Williams, Executive Director of the State Housing Authority, gave a brief history of the effort to do a project in the village as a straight non-profit only to determine this was not feasible due to the high cost of land in Shelburne. The intent is to support the mobile home park and the residents. The mobile home park has been a silent affordable housing development in the town for many years. Initially the focus was to save the mobile home park, but then it was realized enough grant money could not be secured to save the park so other options had to be explored, such as elder housing, family housing, single family units. A single family housing development would not work because there was not enough density on the property. GMDG was contacted and they felt they could sustain the mobile home park and create new affordable housing, however, if the density is not available to underwrite the mobile home park, then most likely the effort will end. Craig Smith, neighbor to Shelburnewood, submitted a petition with 95 signatures thus far speaking to the issue of accountability to the vision of the Town Plan. The Town Plan must have “teeth” so that if the plan calls for affordable housing then it must be so. Mr. Smith urged the town not to miss the opportunity for affordability and density to get people into the village. All the hard work and compromise by the Planning Commission is acknowledged, stated Mr. Smith. Pete Elias, Shelburnewood, thanked the Planning Commission for their work and spoke in support of maintaining the mobile home park, smart growth, density with the current plan and the request of the developer. Paul Rosenthal, Shelburne resident, felt the town does promote affordable housing and urged the Planning Commission to ensure there is enough density so the regulations do not have to be changed again to accommodate the proposal by GMDG. Susan McFeeters, McCabe Circle, stated her development is affordable housing on the bus line and within walking distance of the village and school. Wake Robin is a nice (elder) housing development, but most cannot afford to live there. Ms. McFeeters urged support of affordable housing for the elderly. If elder housing is nearby the center of town, the residents can walk to the village and extra traffic will not be created. Peg Rosenau, Shelburne Meadows, described her affordable housing development that is one of the denser developments in town. The development is a working example of smart growth being close to the village so residents can walk to places. There is a comfort limit of density, stated Ms. Rosenau, and not just in the number of housing units, but the surrounding environment as well. Issues such as yard area per unit, parking, snow storage, and neighbors living close to each other must be considered. Also, residents in affordable housing developments may not stay there forever. Bob Platt, Shelburne resident, asked if the same density requirements apply to all uses in a zone, noting that Pillsbury Manor has residents mainly over 70 years of age living in condominium units. There are no children and not many cars. With affordable housing the town is trying to attract young families with children so there is a need for yard space. Dick Elkins pointed out the density for a duplex unit is 7,500 s.f while a single family house is 10,000 s.f. ESSH is 1,850 s.f. per unit. Joyce Errecart spoke in support of significant lot requirements to promote denser development. If larger lots are required for a house, the house will subsequently be large and expensive and not affordable by most people who live in Shelburne. Affordable housing is needed in Vermont and it can begin in Shelburne. Provisions should be included in the zoning regulations to promote affordable housing, not just creating a picture of what the town would like to look like. Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, referred to the allowance for a building height of 45’ and buildings located 200’ from Route 7. Existing buildings of 45’ in height pre-existing zoning. Ms. Webster felt buildings 45’ in height in the village will set a precedent. Other than cities, most towns do not have building greater than 35’ in height. If building height is greater than 35’ then a 200’ setback is not enough. Ms. Webster asked that the town determine the density in the village now (i.e. how many living units) and how much the proposed development will increase the density. Ms. Webster spoke in support of keeping the trailer park, but not having the proposed development overwhelm the village. Churches and historic structures in town over 45’ in height are fine, but not a new modern building. Ms. Webster urged the Planning Commission to maintain the 35’ building height maximum and not set a dangerous precedent. ARTICLE IX – SHELBURNE FALLS MIXED USE DISTRICT No comments. ARTICLE X – MIXED USE Tony Cairns, Champlain Oil, requested fleet fueling be allowed in the Mixed Use or Commerce and Industry zones. The operation of a fleet fuel station was explained (membership card system, not open to the general public, for purchase of diesel and/or gasoline fuel, open 24 hours/day). Brian Precourt, Shelburne resident, pointed out the proposed permitted and conditional uses in the Mixed Use zone will make his business nonconforming and is regulating the business off the site. Mr. Precourt questioned why his property on Route 7 is being put into the Mixed Use zone, and expressed concern about the current uses on the site being made nonconforming. Dean Pierce stated the change is to give properties more flexibility. The intention was not to make current uses nonconforming. ARTICLE XI – COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DISTRICT Mr. Cairns asked that fleet fueling be considered in the Commerce and Industry District. ARTICLE XII – COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DISTRICT SOUTH No comments. ARTICLE XIII – CONSERVATION DISTRICT No comments. ARTICLE XIV – NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY No comments. ARTICLE XV – VILLAGE DESIGN REVIEW No comments. ARTICLE XVI – VILLAGE CORE OVERLAY No comments. ARTICLE XVII – LAKESHORE OVERLAY Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point resident, spoke against the restrictions in the Lakeshore Overlay District because the neighborhood is already overburdened with regulations. There are a number of requirements and restrictions that do not accomplish what is desired in terms of erosion control and tree cutting control, stated Mr. Jackson, but the regulations do accomplish not seeing any development from the lake. It is unreasonable and unfair to tax those in the district the most and unjust to put the most restrictions on those in the district. Phosphorus and water quality are not the full responsibility of Shelburne’s lakefront property owners when this is an entire watershed problem, said Mr. Jackson. The restrictions on cutting do not allow the promotion of regeneration of trees. A balance must be found. The regulations do not accomplish what the town wants to accomplish. The tree cutting proposal for the Jackson project was specific to that land parcel and the wishes of the Jackson family for the land, not a plan for the entire lakefront, stressed Mr. Jackson. The tree cutting regulations are too restrictive and not in the best interest of the landowner if they are required to get a professional opinion and then permission from the town to cut down a dead tree on their own property. Regarding retaining walls being cement, faced, and not higher than the 102’ mark, this creates a financial burden and more erosion problems unless the wall can be the appropriate level for the area of lakefront. Mr. Jackson contended the regulations are purely for aesthetics and so development is not seen from the lake. Shelburne Farms has a conservation restriction so it will not be developed. Southern Acres has the same. Mr. Jackson advised “if it is not broken, do not fix it”. Shelburne Farms was built 100 years ago and to rewrite the zoning regulations based on that area, the open area, and use erosion there as an example is inappropriate. At Shelburne Farms the shoreline was restored and lots of cutting took place. Awards for restoring the area to historic views were won. Perhaps language about historic views should be added to Shelburne’s regulations, said Mr. Jackson. Tom Koerner, Shelburne resident, questioned who the screening is to benefit when for nearly 10 months out of the year there is no one on the lake and in the summer months the people on the lake are generally not residents of Shelburne or even United States citizens. There are issues of the broad lake, beaches, types of habitat, soil conditions, hardwoods, softwoods, run off, lack of run off, water quality between the lake and the bay to consider. The regulations are wide spread. Mr. Koerner urged the Planning Commission to revisit portions of Article XVII relative to screening because it is unclear with regard to screening homes from the lake. The water quality and erosion issues are understandable. Section 1761.A.2 speaks to reasonable views of the lake and mountains. Enforcement is also an issue. The regulations may be adding undue burden on the town because most likely dead trees will be cut down by the property owner without asking permission first, said Mr. Koerner. Michael Serrano, owner of the Days Inn, stated people who own properties on the lake are absorbing the brunt for everyone else. Everyone works hard for what they have. The lakefront is all different and there is different tree coverage in different areas so the regulations are difficult to apply. Also, people spend money on their houses so they can be seen. Mr. Serrano suggested the Planning Commission reconsider what is in the lakeshore overlay plan. Tucker Holland explained water quality is a big issue. The Shelburne Natural Resources Committee provided recommendation for a 200’ setback and the Planning Commission reduced this to 125’ so the initial 100’ are not disturbed by development. Jeff Jackson interjected there is lakefront that is crying out for help, but the regulations as stated are not allowing help to happen. The 200’ proposal was brought up in the hearing on the Jackson proposal and in hearings on the Town Plan, but the Selectboard rejected the 200’ setback and instead agreed to 100’ setback, recalled Mr. Jackson, adding he does not understand the rationale to change to 125’ setback and put more homes into nonconformance. Ginny Ockert, Shelburne resident, asked if the regulations apply to existing property owners (i.e. can her property be cleared for a view of the lake or must the scrubby buckthorn be maintained). Tucker Holland stated the regulations apply in the district. A view corridor can be cleared and it is not required to plant trees to meet the width of the corridor if the area is open as a pre-existing condition. Ms. Ockert asked if the screening is for the property owner looking out or the person on the lake looking in. Reg Gignoux explained the plantings are to filter water coming off the land. Buckhorn and honeysuckle are invasive species and a plan to rid the area of these plants is needed. Ms. Ockert asked if groundcover can be planted to stop erosion and the area cleared of trees. Mr. Gignoux stated approximately 30% of what is there in terms of the corridor can be cleared without removing trees. The primary purpose of the regulation is to be consistent with the state and other towns with lakeshore to help erosion. Tom Koerner interjected the broad lake presents a different set of natural situations as compared to the bay relative to erosion. Mr. Koerner stated his parents who lived on the bay side of the lake for 50 years only lost one tree in that time frame. Jeff Provost, owner of Dock Doctors, spoke on behalf of several residents with lakefront property. Mr. Provost stated the state regulations for docks are very old and out of date. The state does not enforce the regulations. Every piece of lakeshore is different and only 10% of docks on Lake Champlain meet state standards. Most of the docks in Shelburne (90%) are over 100’ long in order to be useful. The lake level fluctuates drastically. To set a dock limit of 50’ and 500’ is unattainable to use with a boat. The town’s dock is 100’. The ramp is 30’ long and in six inches of water. Lakeshore owners want 36” of water at the end of the dock for a boat, and do not want a dock of 100’ in length. The lake should decide where the dock is located based on the elevation of the water and the shorefront as well as the usability of the water. The number for the dock measurement should not be abstract. The same logic needs to be applied to retaining walls. If waves break over a wall at the 102’ mark then there will be problems created on the land side of the wall. Enforcement is another issue. Tucker Holland pointed out the language is to make explicit allowances for items not previously allowed, such as docks and stairways. Bud Ockert, Shelburne resident, cautioned that when restrictions are established, enforcement is a problem. If regulations are not going to be enforced then they should not be created. ARTICLE XVIII – FLOODPLAIN AND WATER COURSE OVERLAY No comments. ARTICLE XIX – GENERAL REGULATIONS Brian Precourt referred to the regulations for a PUD mixed use development and asked if consideration had been given to allow pedestrian paths or bike paths in the buffer areas, and with a PUD commercial development if paths or stormwater facilities would be allowed in the buffer if they are screened. Jeff Jackson mentioned the requirement to do a PUD in the rural zone if three or more units are being built. Mr. Jackson felt the regulation contradicts the “peace and quiet” of the zone if denser neighborhoods are required to be built. ARTICLE XX – ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT No comments. ARTICLE XXI –DEFINITIONS No comments. ATTACHEMENTS – MAPS No comments. MOTION by Peter Gibbs, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to continue the public hearing on amendments to the Shelburne zoning regulations until 2/21/08 at 7 p.m. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 4. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Cole Wind Turbine The Planning Commission reviewed a letter to Susan Hudson regarding the Cole wind turbine and agreed with the recommended language changes as presented. Dick Elkins said the language should not be so onerous the applicant withdraws their application. Dean Pierce will communicate with Frank Cole the intention of the Planning Commission for wind turbines in general and that the Planning Commission is not targeting their application specifically. 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Kate Lalley, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. RScty: MERiordan
January 2008Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - February 2008 March 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - March 2008 April 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - April 2008 May 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - May 2008 June 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - June 2008 July 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - July 2008 August 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - August 2008 September 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - September 2008 October 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - October 2008 November 2008 Planning Commission Minutes - November 2008 |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2008 |
