Town of Shelburne | February 2008

MINUTES SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY THE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.

TOWN OF SHELBURNE

MEMBERS PRESENT: Tucker Holland (Chairman); Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Kay Kraushaar, Claude LaPierre, Kate Lalley. (Reg Gignoux was absent.)

OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Washburn, Norman Marcotte, Carroll Ockert, Genevieve Ockert, Bill Aldrich, Sharon Barton, Rick Barton, Nelleka Rosenthal, Bill Shearer, Douglas Schweible, Ron Bouchard, Fritz Horton, Jeff Jackson, Vicki Carleton, Phil Carleton, Craig Smith, Jerry Barton, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Tom Koerner, Oda Hubbard, Joan Lenes, Alex Varsakopoulos, Lois D’arcangelo, Cheryl Roberts, Charlie Brush, Brian Precourt, Wright Caswell, Jim Talley, Paul Bohne, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

MOTION by Dick Elkins, SECOND by Kate Lalley, to approve the 1/31/08 minutes with the following corrections:

Page 1, Item #2, Public Hearing – Town Plan, 1^st paragraph, 2^nd sentence – insert “to the Commerce and Industry District” after ‘erroneously assigned’;

Page 1, Item #2, Public Hearing – Town Plan, 2^nd paragraph, 1^st sentence – change “his lot” to “a lot”;

Page 2, Article I, 1^st paragraph – move the comments by Brian Precourt to appear under Article X – Mixed Use District and in the sentence reading “Dean Pierce explained the term applies to...” – insert “is defined in the proposed bylaws and” between the words ‘term’ and ‘applies’;

Page 2, Article VIII – Village Center District, 1^st paragraph, 1^st sentence – insert “gross” between the words ‘decreasing the’ and ‘density’;

Page 3, top of page, sentence referring to the square footage of ESSH – change “1,800 s.f.” to “1,850 s.f.”;

Page 3, paragraph beginning with ‘Richard Williams’, 5^th sentence (beginning with “A single family housing development...”) – replace “A single family housing development” with “An affordable single family housing development”;

Page 3, paragraph beginning with ‘Richard Williams’, before the sentence beginning with “GMDG” – insert the sentence reading: “There is no design yet and it is not certain the present plan to zoning will work dollar-wise.”;

Page 8, Article XIX – General Regulations, 2^nd paragraph – change “Jeff Jackson mentioned” to “Jeff Jackson questioned”.

The public hearing on the amendments to the Town Plan was opened at 7:15 p.m. There were no comments from the public.

MOTION by Peter Gibbs, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to adjourn the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Shelburne Comprehensive Plan. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The public hearing on amendments to the zoning regulations was opened at 7:17 p.m. Dean Pierce mentioned work on the zoning bylaws has taken place over the past several years involving a range of staff members, consultants, town boards, commissions, committees, and townspeople. The amendments cover districts and overlays, lighting, and signs. After consideration of public input the Planning Commission will submit a proposal on the amendments to the zoning bylaws to the Selectboard for consideration and adoption.

Craig Smith, Trinity Church, Shelburne Road, mentioned the signed petition previously submitted requesting the Planning Commission to make a vision of affordable housing in Shelburne, and asked how the Planning Commission will make this vision happen, urging the creation of a proactive plan. Mr. Smith also asked what the Planning Commission envisions the plan for affordable housing in Shelburne will look like in terms of affordability specifically, and what the majority and minority points of view of the Planning Commission are relative to this matter. Craig Smith stressed the regulations need to support the spirit of the vision (for affordable housing) and that has to match with the reality of the business (proposed development) and cost. There must be flexibility created in the plan to accompany the vision, but it appears the regulations may block that from happening. The present density requirements do not seem to support the vision.

Charlie Brush, GMDG, observed a 15% bonus for affordable housing in possibly the wealthiest town in the state or even the country seems paltry. Also, the issue of 8,000 s.f. lot size for a mobile home versus 5,000 s.f. is significant. The definition of affordable housing is 80% of median income. If the numbers are run backwards that pushes the numbers down (the GMDG project cannot pay for itself) and substantial subsidy will be needed. At 100% of median income and a 25% bonus, the project will work. Peter Gibbs calculated at 100% of median income with a 25% bonus two market rate homes will subsidize one affordable home. Mr. Brush clarified at 80% median income outside dollars will be needed to make the project work, and it is difficult to secure those funds (lots of competition). Tucker Holland asked if the mobile home park residents are unanimously in support of the 5,000 s.f. lot size per unit. Charlie Brush stated the 8,000 s.f. requirement does not mean each lot will have 8,000 s.f. in a PRD. Presently each mobile home lot is on 5,000 s.f. of land (includes roads and sheds). The average size of a mobile home is 800 s.f. Tucker Holland mentioned the recent article in the local newspaper quoting the developer as saying the ‘numbers can work’. Mr. Brush acknowledged the statement, but added there is no guarantee that the 15% bonus can be met. Craig Smith interjected the issue is providing affordable senior housing to allow long time residents of Shelburne to remain living in Shelburne. There was mention of the setback of buildings from Route 7 being increased to 400’ rather than 200’. Charlie Brush stated the density of the project can be tweaked somewhat, but building height cannot. Mr. Brush will forward his comments on the proposal to increase the setback from Route 7 to 400’.

Wright Caswell, Shelburne Baseball, spoke in support of the sign regulations as proposed, and asked that the zoning regulations be forwarded to the Selectboard for adoption prior to Shelburne Baseball’s opening day parade in May.

David Webster, Webster Road, spoke in support of maintaining the current building height restrictions, observing that the 200’ setback ends at the back of buildings along Route 7. Any building exceeding the height limit will be very visible and that is not what is wanted for the village. It would be setting a precedent to allow excessive building height and this will have a huge impact on how Shelburne looks.

Gwen Webster, Falls Road, echoed the comments by David Webster regarding building height. Ms. Webster also commented on Section 820.0, conditional use for a bed and breakfast and the limit of four rooms maximum to rent. Ms. Webster felt the four bedroom limit may not be sufficient in the village center.

Bill Shearer, Meach Island Road, spoke in support of higher density development in the village. Mr. Shearer also spoke positively of GMDG as a quality developer producing housing for all groups, ages, and income levels.

Fritz Horton, Champlain Drive, mentioned the Shelburne Shopping Plaza as a ‘background facility’ that was established by the Clayton family many years ago. The development took traffic off Route 7 and allowed residential properties along Route 7 to remain in scale. The buildings in the plaza are now at the end of their depreciated service life and are limited by height. Also, the property is parceled out to individual owners. It is time to allow the development to go to the next level of density. The highest and best use and value for the property is to allow 40’ building heights with residential over retail so the site is active day and night.

Jerry Barton, 115 Marsett Road, spoke of the consequences to the residents of Shelburnewood if the proposed (GMDG) development does not occur. The residents have been in limbo for the past three years, not being able to sell their property. The value of a mobile home is directly tied to the lot. There are no lots available in Chittenden County for mobile homes. A mobile home not on a lot is worth about 1/5^th of its value.

Fritz Horton, Champlain Drive (east side of Shelburne Bay), recalled in 2006 the suggestion to increase the lakeshore setback to 200’ was vigorously opposed by residents to the Selectboard, and the Selectboard was clear in its instruction not to change the setback. The resetting of the baseline from 102’ to 98’ is understood, but the effect of the change increases the setback in every case except where the shore is very shallow and the 98’ line is father away from the 102’ line. The change is a further encroachment on every property in the bay and possibly the outer lake as well. In the name of erosion, the existing houses with lakefront property had a 100’ setback for many years. Lawns are now in place and improved. There is no new development. Driveways are behind the houses. Zoning controls growth and cover. With regard to one dock per 400’ of lakefront, continued Mr. Horton, there are 91 properties on the lake impacted (would lose their decks). Tucker Holland clarified the intention is not to have existing docks removed. Dean Pierce stated the language relative to docks needs clarification to say ‘lots with up to 400’ of lake frontage will be entitled to have one dock’. Mr. Horton suggested a provision be made for a different solution. There are homeowners associations that own property on the water where several houses as members have more than one dock. There are no permanent docks on the lake or bay. Permanent docks are prohibited unless there are concrete pylons. Dock should be defined as temporary structures. The same issues are involved with stairs.

Doug Schweible, Bay Road, expressed concern about docks, noting he owns 100’ of lakefront property and wants to have a dock which may not be allowed under the proposed regulation. Tucker Holland assured the Planning Commission is not trying to take away the right to have a dock if an individual owns lakeshore property, but to clarify the language pertaining to docks.

Jim Washburn, Bay Road, expressed concern about creating policy that retroactively changes the circumstances of property someone purchased earlier. There should perhaps be a grandfather clause. The rules should not be changed for people who have owned their (lakeshore) properties forever. There is nothing in the zoning regulations about docks so the Planning Commission is adding language that was not there previously. Tucker Holland reiterated the intent is to clarify the right to have a dock. Dean Pierce explained a dock meets the definition of a structure and must meet the setback requirement. Docks on the lake cannot meet the setback requirement so this would mean the dock would not be allowed, but individuals with lakeshore property should be able to have a dock. The suggested language is to remove any ambiguity and show that the requirements are met. Jim Washburn pointed out the definition of a structure (Section 1331) refers to a building, not a dock. Dean Pierce noted the definition of structure relative to docks is found under Article XXI – Definitions.

Gwen Webster, Falls Road, mentioned the 125’ setback versus 100’ setback, noting there are nonconforming structures throughout the lakeshore district. To increase the setback to 125’ will make every structure more nonconforming. Dean Pierce stated the data show there are six or seven structures impacted. Fritz Horton noted the setback regulations as proposed impact walkways, patios, pathways, and driveways to existing houses. If your house is within the setback zone and the setback is increased then there cannot be a sidewalk, driveway or patio. Structures presently nonconforming are impacted significantly by increasing the setback. Mr. Horton mentioned access to property for the disabled, and suggesting an exception is needed. Kay Kraushaar clarified the regulations say nothing can be built any farther into the setback than the existing structure. Expansion laterally (to the side) would be allowed. Dean Pierce referred to Section 1750.2 (new structures within the 125’ setback) noting sidewalks would not be allowed. Ms. Webster stated Sections 1750.1 and 1750.2 address new structures or an addition based on the outside dimensions of the original structure. The measurement was based on the cubic dimension in the past; better delineation of this is needed.

Ron Bouchard, Clearwater Road, asked for the definition of ‘paved path’, ‘gravel path’, ‘significant erosion’ and ‘visually compatible to surrounding shoreline’ relative to seawalls. Regarding docks, Lake Champlain is a federal waterway. A town cannot impose rules on federal waters. Dean Pierce stated there is no preemption. The point occurs at the public trust doctrine. Regarding the length of docks, Mr. Bouchard stated a 50’ restriction in length will not work where there is shallow water which requires going out a distance to find deeper water. Tucker Holland noted state guidelines are being followed. A representative from the Dock Doctor testified at a previous hearing that 50’ may not be adequate, and the Planning Commission is taking all comments under consideration to ensure there is sufficient water depth for a dock. Mr. Bouchard asked if a dock will be allowed on a lot presently without a dock. Mr. Holland assured if an individual owns lakeshore frontage they can have a dock. Mr. Bouchard referred to the requirement for seawall materials for ‘visual compatibility to surrounding shoreline’, noting the town wants seawalls to stop erosion but may be pricing people out of affordability with the required materials (expensive). Regarding the two foot height limit on seawalls, there are places where two feet is not adequate for the wind and waves, stated Mr. Bouchard, advising it is not wise or reasonable to limit the size of seawalls to two feet. Mr. Bouchard opined it is unconscionable for the Planning Commission to increase the setback to 125’ and take away property rights. The 100’ setback has been in place for a long time. Mr. Holland acknowledged the comments as very helpful and constructive.

Thomas Koerner, Harbor Road, submitted the results of his informal research on setbacks for nine neighboring towns along the lake. The results show the towns have a setback between 50’ and 100’ with South Burlington having a 150’ setback from the 102’ mark. The elevation marks across the towns ranged from 95’ to 102’. Some towns have restrictions in the setback. Mr. Koerner also addressed the restrictions pertaining to stairs (four foot wide, following existing grade, not exceeding one foot higher than the existing grade), and stated the restrictions can not be met especially where there is a vertical drop. The changes are extremely restrictive, stressed Mr. Koerner

Bill Shearer, Meach Island Road, said changing the setback from 100’ to 125’ will make the vast majority of lakeshore properties more non-complying. The document pertaining to erosion is seven pages long while So. Burlington’s text saying essentially ‘make the situation better and try to stop erosion’ is only three paragraphs long. Erosion is not caused by the homeowners, but is caused by high water, high wind, ice and a combination of the three. Seawalls help erosion. The documentation is making the property owner deal with the minutia. The document is unconscionable and should be redrafted, stressed Mr. Shearer. Fritz Horton added when the ice melts, the lake level goes up and erosion occurs. There are two tributaries that feed the lake from run off and creeks. There is erosion and pollution, but this is not from the homes and lawns on the lakeshore. There are farmlands and other contributing water sources (storms, springs, run off).

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point, read the letter from Willard Jackson, dated 2/12/08, regarding the Shelburne Point subdivision and lake overlay hearings. Regarding the subdivision being used as a model of excellence, Mr. Jackson pointed out the restrictions by the Planning Commission on the subdivision were meant to apply to the six lots of the development only, not to be imposed on other property owners. Willard Jackson’s letter also spoke in support of a 100’ setback.

There was further discussion of the proposed changes to the lakeshore overlay district. Tom Koerner urged the Planning Commission to listen to the comments, noting no one voiced support for the proposed changes. Dean Pierce pointed out storm water regulations require state regulations to be met. In the Water Course Overlay District, the north branch of Monroe Brook is being added so the town is trying to address tributaries and brooks. Mr. Pierce urged input regarding expansion of areas in the storm and water course districts. Ron Bouchard stated the changes are grossly and overly regulatory. Existing structures are not increasing the problem.

Nelleka Rosenthal, Harbor Road, agreed with comments previously stated about the proposed changes, adding people who are paying exorbitant taxes want to preserve their property and do not want erosion. More restrictions make it more difficult to live on the property.

Brian Precourt, Winter Haven Road, referred to Section 1900.4 related to the 60’ buffer on Route 7 being landscaped with trees, and allowing only a 30’ drive or service road. Mr. Precourt suggested referencing a percentage of the front yard coverage rather than an arbitrary road. A bike path could not be allowed because the document says “road”. The goal of good design in future buildings and redevelopment is defeated by the requirement to plant trees in the front. Mr. Precourt referred to Section 1930.4.A.5 – PUD in the Mixed Use District and requested pedestrian/bike paths and storm water structures be allowed in the buffer. Regarding Section 1930.10 – Mixed Use District and redevelopment possibilities, Mr. Precourt suggested the front yard setback be revisited to better support redevelopment encouraged through good design..

MOTION by Peter Gibbs, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Shelburne zoning regulations. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

MOTION by Dick Elkins, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to take a 10 minute recess of the regular meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

Jim Talley provided information on fire fighting equipment. The height of the ground ladder used by the Fire Department is 28’. The ladder allows access to 2/3 of its height (18’). Purchase of a ladder truck is included in the Capital Plan for Year 2012. Shelburne can borrow the ladder truck from South Burlington (mutual aid), but it can take up to 15 minutes for the truck to arrive. For firefighters the issues are windows for evacuating people from buildings and safety on the roof. Firefighters with a ladder only can not work safely on the roof of a tow-story building because there must be two ways off the roof. With a ladder truck, firefighters are not on the roof when cutting a hole through the structure. Truss construction is tenable in a fire (high risk of collapse). Stick construction is more expensive than truss construction. There is more truss construction being done today.

There was discussion of building height of 45’, setback from Route 7, and 5,000 s.f. per parcel for mobile homes. Tucker Holland suggested contacting Craig Smith for the percentage of support by residents in Shelburnewood for 5,000 s.f. lots versus 8,000 s.f. lots per unit. Dick Elkins pointed out the matter was already researched. The Planning Commission must keep in mind the public good in the long term; a two family working household with multiple cars in a small space is not desirable. Mr. Elkins felt if the current developer cannot do the project, another developer and project will likely come along. Tucker Holland said he is not inclined to change the density (8,000 s.f.), but is willing to consider increasing the 15% bonus. Dick Elkins interjected he could support an increase in the bonus if the increase is limited to family housing, not senior housing. Kate Lalley advised the town needs to decide what kind of affordable housing should be encouraged (families, senior housing or both). Tucker Holland stated having seniors living within walking distance of services is good. Dick Elkins pointed out the Town Plan calls for vitality which needs working families, activity, and children. The current proposal is for 50% elder housing. Dick Elkins mentioned having a rule of inclusionary affordable housing in each district as opposed to offering a density bonus.

At the next meeting the Board will discuss the Village Center District (Article VIII) to include a setback of 400’ from Route 7 for tall buildings, building height restriction, lot size for mobile homes, density bonus calculation, and lower lot size requirement for smaller units dealt with through a density bonus. Kate Lalley stated the town does not want to develop a unique parcel to the ‘letter of the law’ and have the results be hideous. More density should be allowed if a project demonstrates exceptional design. The Board will also discuss the side yard setback in the Mixed Use District (Article X) and in the Lakeshore Overlay District (Article XVII) the issues of the 125’ setback and 102’ mark, docks (number, size, and temporary/permanent structure), cutting restrictions, seawalls (two foot height above flood water level, building material – concrete to flood level with bio-design above), and screening (view for homeowner or boater on the lake, lawns versus groundcover to control run off). Peter Gibbs noted the town can match state and federal regulations, but cannot be less restrictive. State statutes control the shoreline. There will be discussion of adding tributaries to the Floodplain Overlay District (Article XVIII ) and allowing paths or storm water structures in buffer areas (Article XIX – General Regulations). Other items to be covered include signs, definitions (paved paths), lighting, assisted living/elder housing in the Mixed Use zone, and the zoning map showing the Blodgett fields.

Dean Pierce reported the Public Service Department said Criterion 8, aesthetics, not the regional growth aspect of the criterion should be considered. The Planning Commission felt regional impacts are important and should be considered.

MOTION by Kate Lalley, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to instruct staff to draft a letter in support of Criterion 8 to cover regional impacts, and to authorize Tucker Holland to sign the letter on behalf of the Planning Commission. VOTING: 4 ayes, 2 nays (Elkins, LaPierre); motion carried.

Dean Pierce reported the Shelburne Selectboard has engaged a different attorney and a letter is being drafted reiterating the position of the town with regard to the project.

MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Dick Elkins, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

MINUTES SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY THE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.

Dean Pierce noted submittals received include: 1) Fritz Horton regarding the lakeshore setback and details on comments relative to measuring from the 102’ mark; 2) John Giebink regarding increasing the setback for tall buildings in the village center; 3) comments from individuals and groups of individuals on the Village Center District and in support of the changes proposed by John Giebink and Charlie Brush to move the GMDG project forward; 4) David Webster (emailed comments directly to the Planning Commission); 5) Shelburnewood residents; 6) Vicki Carleton; 7) CEA regarding datum for elevation and flood stage for seawalls (two feet above flood stage); 8) Tom Koerner regarding the Lakeshore Overlay District. Mr. Pierce reviewed a summary of suggested changes to the zoning bylaws.

There was agreement lakeshore property owners are entitled to a dock. Reg Gignoux mentioned side yard setbacks so docks do not crowd neighboring property. Dean Pierce suggested language could be added to indicate docks previously in place are considered pre-existing. Bill Shearer mentioned the “T” at the end of most docks should not be included in the dock size. Also, docks are removed from the water each year. The regulations show docks as a permitted use and docks for homeowners associations with land that require more than one dock are considered conditional uses. Stairs are a permitted use. There was discussion of the length of the dock. Michael Wurth opined docks are not structures. Docks are moved depending on the depth of the water. Dean Pierce stated per the definition a dock is a structure (placed in a location for any length of time). A dock is not a device and is not mobile. Bob Lake stressed docks are removed from the water. Some docks are disassembled once removed from the water. There was discussion of docks as permanent versus temporary. Reg Gignoux stated docks attached to the land need review (i.e. a permit), but if a dock is temporary (not fixed rigidly to the land) then a permit should not be required. Dean Pierce will draft language to differentiate between docks attached to the shore and free wheeled docks that are put in place and removed. Docks will be discussed further at the next meeting.

Tom Koerner mentioned Section 1750.1.C which makes reference to volume when referring to expansion of noncomplying structures, and asked if a detached noncomplying garage can be expanded per the 50% volume increase allowance. Dean Pierce pointed out the regulations provide for expansion of a noncomplying structure provided it is the livable space in the primary structure (Section 1750.1.E). Excluding a noncomplying garage from the calculation has always been in the regulations and does not get the protection of the 50% volume increase. The Planning Commission can decide to modify the language to include garages and other accessory structures. Mr. Koerner recalled the Zoning Board’s interpretation of the regulation was an existing garage could not be included in determining the volume for the 50% expansion, but a free standing building that was converted from garage space to living space was allowed expansion. Following further discussion the Planning Commission agreed to add language under (C) stating “attached garage to a residence shall not be included in the calculation” and to delete (E). Kate Lalley asked about converting an existing garage to a residence. Dean Pierce stated if there is modification of a noncomplying structure the proposed use can not be any more noncomplying. Language was clarified in Section 1750.1 to read “...additions to existing primary structures....” Tom Koerner noted the change from footprint to volume precluded going up in height so volume worked well. If the area over the garage is existing living space then the space is included in the calculation.

Michael Wurth, Pine Haven Shore resident and geologist, explained the phosphorus issue is not caused by the existing homes on the lake, but from farm land and erosion from streams cutting through farm land. Phosphorus stays locked in the soil and when chunks of soil (erosion) are swept into flowing water the phosphorus becomes part of the sediment. Most of the shoreline in Shelburne is stable. There is not much erosion. Muddy water spilling into the lake is sediment flowing in from streams/tributaries. Increasing the setback will have zero effect on phosphorus inland. With the homes on the lakeshore phosphorus is locked in the established lawns and the banks have been stabilized. Farms should have a 50’ greenway along the banks of streams on their property to avoid erosion. Farm animals should be kept out of the streams. It was mentioned that the municipal sewage treatment plants are dumping 31 tons of phosphorus into the lake.

Tom Koerner expressed concern about enforcement of cutting restrictions. Clear language is needed. Comment was made that first time lakefront property owners typically think they want to clear cut the trees, but soon realize they need the trees for shade and wind protection. Bob Lake urged education, not regulation. Jeff Jackson noted 90% of the bay is deforested already. Reg Gignoux stated direction and control is needed for the few individuals who will cause a problem by cutting too much. Neighbors should be able to live next to each other and still feel they have privacy. The lakeshore residents in attendance stressed they are good stewards of the land and do not need to be told which trees to cut. The lakeshore is developed at this point. Tucker Holland pointed out the regulations will guide future owners of lakeshore property. Neighbors need to be able to resolve an egregious situation if one should occur. Amy Gregory, Pine Haven Shore, spoke in support of seeing houses on the shoreline, not just seeing a bank of trees. The Planning Commission agreed the cutting restrictions should be simpler and more enforceable. Additional time is needed to determine the most appropriate language for the regulations. Tom Koerner suggested proactively doing some education (show pictures of different amounts of cutting and the impact) when a building permit or land transfer occurs. Kate Lalley explained one intent is to preserve the character of the lakeshore existing now and allowing that there will be development in the future. Jeff Jackson suggested the town can purchase the property wanted to be preserved instead of imposing regulations on the property owner. The regulations take away the ability to cut old trees that will fall into the lake dragging soil and rock with it.

There was comment on significant waves that come on shore and go over seawalls during storms. The Planning Commission concurred language should be added to require that a licensed professional engineer must design the seawall. Reg Gignoux stated natural materials and color on the face should be used as much as possible. Jeff Jackson suggested preventative and proactive intervention should be allowed to prevent erosion before it becomes “significant” as noted in the regulations. Dick Elkins suggest the words “only solution” pertaining to seawalls be replaced with “best solution” in the regulations. Bill Shearer suggested natural materials be encouraged, not mandated. Dean Pierce suggested the language could read “...unless faced with or composed of materials that are similar in color to naturally occurring material in the vicinity.” There was further discussion of seawalls being visually compatible and changing the language to say the seawall cannot have an adverse impact.

Peter Gibbs calculated a double wide mobile home with a 15’ side yard setback and a 30’ front and back yard setback needs approximately 5,000 s.f. lot size. More space is needed to accommodate amenities so 8,000 s.f. per unit makes sense. Reg Gignoux suggested providing a density bonus for imaginative planning and layout of amenities. Dick Elkins stated 8,000 s.f. is needed to provide space for the living unit plus campers, cars, visitors parking, and such. There was discussion of existing conditions at Shelburnewood. Residents of Shelburnewood testified most of the lots are 5,000 s.f. The residents will lose their homes if the proposal by GMDG does not happen, but if the development proceeds the residents will maintain what they have which is acceptable to the residents. Dick Elkins proposed maintaining the 8,000 s.f. requirement and granting a 2,000 s.f. density bonus to the developer to use where they want on the Shelburnewood site. Some of the density would have to be affordable housing. New mobile homes in town would have to comply with the 8,000 s.f. per unit requirement. It was noted the developer did indicate the project could work with 8,000 s.f. per mobile home unit. Dean Pierce will draft language for mobile home related transfers of 2,000 s.f. per unit to be used elsewhere on the site. A certain percent of the bonus is to be used for affordable housing and a certain percent is to be used for elder housing. Tucker Holland suggested having an inclusionary percentage based on the number of units and the developer can decide how to use the bonus.