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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator; Dean Pierce, Town Planner (via teleconference).

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jenny Ockert, Bud Ockert, Alan Schillhammer, Craig Smith, John Giebink, Charlie Brush, Bill Shearer, Ed Vizvarie, Joan Lenes, Grant Bush, Phil Carleton, Vicki Carleton, Keigan Hutchinson, Gwen Webster, Cheryl Roberts, Joyce Errecart, David Webster, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News)

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.

 

 

[Note: the minutes reflect numerical order of articles for ease of reference. The Planning Commission did not cover all articles in numerical order at the meeting]

 

The Planning Commission concurred the elevation to measure lake level is NVGD 29.

 

The Planning Commission concurred to bring the village boundary on the southeast edge into conformance with the Town Plan.

 

The Planning Commission concurred the buffer along the Monroe Brook watershed should be extended to the smaller tributaries of the brook (incorporate a 50’ setback along the entire watershed to be consistent with state statute).

 

Craig Smith, Trinity Church, urged the Planning Commission to build flexibility into the regulations so the provision for affordable housing “drives the regulations” and that the regulations encourage the positive result of affordable housing in the village center.  The density recommendations are a ‘guesstimate’. The zoning regulations goal is density and development being negotiable based on principles and the goal in the Town Plan that affordable housing be provided.

 

There was discussion of the proposed PUD mixed use mobile home park by GMDG and the potential transfer of density relative to the existing mobile home sites (i.e. 8,000 s.f. per mobile home unit would be the town standard in the regulations, but a transfer of some amount of square footage would be granted to the GMDG project). Dick Elkins said he is not in favor of density bonuses, and the amount of elder housing in the GMDG project takes up too much of the property.  Mr. Elkins proposed the town identify different classes of elder housing and treatments (four categories) to apply town wide rather than squeezed into one space.  The categories include Primary Elder Housing at 3,500 s.f. per unit (single family units), Secondary Elder Housing (ESSH offering minimal support services and meals), Elder Care Facility (offering 24/7 medical support, meals, tertiary care), and Elder Continuing Care Facility (offering 24/7 memory and/or physically impaired support services, full nursing care). In the village center a maximum of 40 units of Primary Elder Housing at 3,500 s.f. would be allowed. Secondary Elder Housing would be 2,500 s.f. and 30% of the developable area over two acres can be this type of housing. Elder Care Facility would be 2,000 s.f. and nursing home type care (Elder Continuing Care Facility) would be 1,850 s.f. per unit with a maximum of 48 units. Nursing home type facilities can be in the Mixed Use District as well. Density impacts the character of an area and the town is trying to plan for Shelburne as a “New England village”, stated Mr. Elkins who spoke in support of the Mike Munson’s recommendation to increase density by decreasing the square footage per mobile home unit from 10,000 s.f. to 8,000 s.f. and decreasing the square footage per ESSH unit from 3,500 s.f. to 1,850 s.f. Traffic and parking need to be considered. Sixty percent of rescue calls are to senior living centers. Staff supports these facilities 24 hours per day, but there will not be staff on-site with the GMDG proposal.  Regarding building height, the Fire Department has a ladder that reaches 18’ high. The windows on the proposed GMDG buildings are 40’ high. Firefighters have to be able to reach and evacuate the elderly residents. (Dean Pierce interjected the Fire Chief issued an opinion on risk and confirmed the GMDG proposed building height is an acceptable risk.)  Regarding character of the area, the GMDG quadruples the density in the village and creates pressure on building height, continued Mr. Elkins. The town will have to purchase a ladder truck to protect the building. The state will mandate the town buy this equipment. Mr. Elkins stated he does support greater density and other types of housing (affordable) in the area as well as inclusionary zoning. Peter Gibbs spoke in support of the language as drafted in the regulations (Mike Munson Version #2). Reg Gignoux agreed provided density bonuses if provided are given for a good reason, such as provision of affordable housing, imaginative design, greater public access to preserved land. Kate Lalley and Claude LaPierre agreed with the statement by Reg Gignoux. Kay Kraushaar spoke in support of Mike Munson Version #2 with a building height restriction of 35’. Tucker Holland agreed with Mike Munson Version #2 with the addition of a design review element and increase in the density bonus to 20%.  There was mention that density was increased in the town (2,500 s.f. for single family dwellings, 5,000 s.f. for two-family dwellings) and the results of the change are not yet known. Now there is a request to further increase density. Reg Gignoux felt density in the village center is a design issue rather than a numbers issue. Kay Kraushaar referred to a comment about there being a limit to density and what it means long term.

 

There was discussion of increasing the setback in conjunction with building height. John Giebink, GMDG, pointed out there are existing buildings along Shelburne Road that exceed the height being discussed. The church will hide most of the GMDG proposed development. What is proposed seems to work well with the 200’ setback. Charlie Brush, GMDG, stated design is important, but all the parameters being discussed take away opportunity for design. Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, stated the churches in town have been there for a long time. Shelburne Inn and the Creamery are large buildings that meet the 200’ setback. A massive structure 200’ from Route 7 will be an atrocity and will be a massive ridgeline. Ms. Webster suggested tests be done out in the field to get a visual idea of setback and mass (i.e. post balloons at various heights and setbacks). John Giebink stated no one is going to propose a ridgeline type building. A variety is encouraged. Within the Village Center District the 200’ setback from main streets eliminates other properties as well. The Clayton property and the Shelburnewood property are impacted.  Kay Kraushaar stated there can still be good design at 35’ height. The Planning Commission’s role is to determine what is appropriate for the village and long term for the town.  Kate Lalley said she would consider 45’ building height with a 200’ setback. There could be a limitation on how much of the façade fronts Route 7 to evoke a more traditional Vermont model, much like the houses in Waterbury. This would eliminate a massive look .The Harrington House in Shelburne is an example. The façade criterion could be relaxed at some setback point, such as 400’.  It was noted the Design Review Overlay includes the Dyer property and Harrington House, but not all of the property proposed to be developed by GMDG. There was suggestion to add design criterion to say “development in [insert name of place] must be determined to be generally consistent with Town of Shelburne design review guidelines”. This criterion could be used to determine if a density bonus is allowed.  The design review guidelines were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Kate Lalley suggested “public access” be added to the design criteria especially as this applies to the GMDG project.

 

David Webster, Shelburne resident, expressed concern the Planning Commission appears to be talking about one project and using what is proposed for that project and applying it to the rest of the village. Reg. Gignoux assured the Planning Commission must consider the entire town. Tucker Holland summarized the modifications discussed include increasing the density bonus to 25% and adding the criterion of good design. Dean Pierce explained the process of forwarding the zoning document proposed by the Planning Commission to the Selectboard. The Selectboard can make minor changes. Public hearings will be held on the document held by the Selectboard. The document will be sent back to the Planning Commission if major changes are made otherwise the Selectboard will adopt the document.

 

Charlie Brush and John Giebink observed the design review criteria do not seem to apply to new construction, but rather renovations and rehabilitations. Dean Pierce concurred, noting though that the document was used for the McCabe Circle project (new construction). Mr. Giebink stated referencing the design review document for the GMDG project is not appropriate because the criteria apply to smaller single housing units. If the criteria are applied to the GMDG property it will be extremely limiting.  Dean Pierce suggested Sections 1550.2 and 1550.3 of the regulations pertaining to texture, materials, existing buildings, structures, settings, and compatibility to the surrounding area could be reviewed. Kate Lalley suggested there be a ‘design review corridor’ along Route 7 which is an historic corridor and the entrance to the village.  Reg Gignoux noted there should be value placed on each element of the design review criteria (elements could include public access, design, affordable housing). The developer would receive a reward (density bonus) in aggregate.

 

Craig Smith questioned why the word “bonus” is used to encourage affordable housing instead of having a vision and saying there will be a certain percentage of affordable housing. Mr. Smith asked about the Planning Commission’s hierarchy of priorities (what is wanted rather than simply noting what is not wanted).  Dick Elkins opposed offering a 25% bonus in exchange for a building looking good. A developer will not likely construct a building that is not attractive. If bonuses are provided there must be inclusionary zoning in order to get affordable housing. Also, limiting the amount of elder housing is important.  If the proposed development by GMDG does not happen, another developer could come in and not be interested in protecting Shelburnewood.  Reg Gignoux asked if the town can mandate affordable housing. Dean Pierce stated there is no mandate, but an objective to “...develop and pursue....on average 10% of new units built of housing affordable at 80% of county median...”. The goal is basically to have an adequate supply of housing of diverse array and no adverse impact on natural resources, goods, and services.  Reg Gignoux observed the Town Plan leaves housing to market forces. Dick Elkins stated a developer is not going to build to breakeven in cost. With inclusionary zoning in the regulations and bonuses, affordable housing is guaranteed to happen.  Craig Smith suggested it be stated specifically in the regulations that non-profit organizations will do affordable housing.

 

There was continued discussion of the issue of density, building height, and the proposed development by GMDG. Dean Pierce distilled Sections 1550.2 and 1550.3 to draft a revised Section 841 and new Section 841.3 as follows:

“Density bonuses shall be granted only for developments which demonstrate exceptional affordable housing creation and open space conservation as specified in Sections 841.1 and 841.2 below and which reflect exceptional design in transition zones as specified in Section 841.3 below. Transitions zones are designated as those portions of lots located between 200 and 400 feet from the edge of the Route 7 right-of-way.

 

841.3 Exceptional Design shall be demonstrated when new construction is energy certification eligible and further such construction is determined to be compatible with the surrounding area. In evaluating the compatibility of the development with the surrounding area the DRB shall consider the scale and general size of the proposed development or structure in relation to existing surroundings, including consideration of such factors as the height of buildings, building width, number of stories, roof type, facade opening (window, door, etc.) and architectural details.”

 

A straw poll of the Planning Commission revealed a majority of support for the following:

David Webster again expressed concern about the process and how an individual is pushing parochial issues to sway the Planning Commission. Tucker Holland pointed out the Planning Commission has decided to take an open feedback approach. Phil Carleton, Shelburnewood resident, observed listening to feedback and the “pushing” has resulted in good changes to the bylaws.

 

The request to add construction services to the Mixed Use District as a conditional use was discussion. Dick Elkins noted the existing construction business owned by Brian Precourt is a nonconforming use and will not be impacted by the change in the zoning, but making the zoning change opens the district to similar construction type uses. Mixed Use should be housing and business. It was noted without the addition of construction services to the zone expansion of the existing nonconforming business in the district will be difficult (due to the nonconformance to the regulations).

 

There was discussion of adding fleet fueling to the Mixed Use District. The Planning Commission did not support this request. There was mention of allowing fleet fueling in the Commerce and Industry District (Article XI). Following discussion, the Planning Commission did not support this addition.

 

The Planning Commission concurred with allowing sidewalks, paths, and storm water utilities in the setback in the Mixed Use District.

 

Alan Schillhammer, owner of Twin City Printers, stated there is rumor the lot next to their lot in Pizzagalli Park may be changed to residential and if this happens the setback will change from 60’ to 150’ which is not acceptable.  Dean Pierce stated one option may be to add language stating “....residential areas designated in the zoning ordinance prior to [insert the effective date of the ordinance]” or a boundary line adjustment can be made.

 

The Planning Commission concurred with the following:

Regarding screening along the lake shore (Section 1760), the Planning Commission concurred there should be a purpose or policy statement stating the preference for all shore properties to have 75% vegetation (screening) for control of bank top erosion, shade, and aesthetics. Reg Gignoux announced he received a document which addresses creating buffers based on scientific evidence. The matter has been studied and there are regulations more severe than would be imagined. There was a large misrepresentation of setbacks from other towns submitted to the Planning Commission by a resident. The South Burlington setback is 250’ and Charlotte is 200’. The average is approximately 100’. Shelburne is considered to be doing a good job. There are many variables to consider (such as slope of land, how long it takes to clear phosphorus before it hits the lake).

 

There was discussion of signs (Section 1970). Dick Elkins felt signs should conform to what exists in the village now. The Planning Commission agreed sandwich style board signs should be four foot on each side (not an eight foot billboard). A one-sided sign should be 4’x 4’ in size. In Section 1970.2.b the words “a total of” were inserted before “sixteen (16) square feet”. The Planning Commission suggested there be an explanation of the rationale for proposed changes in the ordinance pertaining to temporary signs and prohibited signs.

 

Next meeting is March 27, 2007. Start time is 6 p.m.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Michael Wurth, Jeff Jackson, Jack Milbank, Thomas Koerner, Sharon Barton, Kryter Adams, Charlie Brush, Bill Shearer, Jane Shearer, Bob Lake, Stephen Booth, Gwen Webster, John Dupee, Bill Aldrich, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News)

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

 

 

[Note: The following action on the minutes transpired at the end of the meeting, but is recorded below for ease of reference.]

 

Dean Pierce reviewed the status of amendments to the zoning bylaws discussed to date (memo to planning Commission, dated 3/20/08).

 

[Note: The minutes reflect numerical order of articles for ease of reference. The Planning Commission did not cover all articles in numerical order at the meeting. Also, for ease of reference comments on a topic from an individual are for the most part grouped together though the comments may have occurred at different points in time during discussion of the topic.]

 

The Planning Commission concurred with the language as proposed.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, expressed disappointment the Planning Commission did not do a visual field test to view various building heights from various distances. Increasing building height is opening a can of worms and can be detrimental to the village, stated Ms. Webster. Ms. Webster felt the Design Review Committee’s jurisdiction should be expanded to cover developments that will have visual impact in the village, not just impact along the Route 7 corridor. Dean Pierce noted the design study which was the basis of the district was the original town plan.  Mr. Pierce pointed out the Dyer property falls in the design review district, and other portions of the property to be developed will be covered by the density bonus criteria.  There was mention of expanding the Design Review District as a future amendment to the zoning regulations.

 

‘Housekeeping’ corrections were noted (Section 1930.4 should be Section 1930.7 and Section 1930.5 should be Section 1930.7). Staff will incorporate the corrections.

 

Jeff Jackson, Shelburne Point, mentioned his request in writing to be informed of changes to the zoning regulations so he could come to the meeting prepared, but nothing has been received from staff. The property owner is impacted by the zoning changes, and it is basically withholding information from the public and very unprofessional of Mr. Pierce, contended Mr. Jackson.  Peter Gibbs pointed out there are essentially two scenarios relative to cutting restrictions: if over half (50%) of a lot is vegetated, then the property owner can cut a substantial amount without a permit; if a lot is less than half vegetated, then a permit is necessary to do any cutting.  Jeff Jackson felt lots that are undeveloped are being singled out by the cutting restrictions, and that is where the largest impact to the property owner occurs. There has been a tremendous amount of cutting over the years on developed lots in the lakeshore district. Views are established. The Planning Commission is restricting future use, future cutting, and it is not appropriate to single this out. People have a right to see the water. Mr. Jackson questioned who is being protected from the views.

 

Tom Koerner, Harbor Road, asked if the 50% figure applies to the entire 100’ setback area. Tucker Holland confirmed this.  Mr. Koerner stated screening implies a linear division, but the language in the bylaw implies depth as well. Mr. Koerner asked if the property owner documents the 50% coverage. Reg Gignoux stated the demarcation is there mainly to settle a conflict if one arises.  Mr. Koerner asked if the screening is linear visual screening from the lake, not 50% coverage of the 100’ setback. Tucker Holland confirmed this.

 

Mike Wurth, lakeshore resident, asked how the 50% is quantified (i.e. tree canopy or tree trunk size). Mr. Wurth asked if brush over a bank or on a bluff is included. Measurement of the vegetation is subjective, stated Mr. Wurth, and there is concern about enforcement if even the Planning Commission is not clear on screening. Reg Gignoux explained the Planning Commission is concerned with wholesale cutting. The bylaw gives town residents a means to object if this occurs.  Mr. Wurth again asked for clarification of ‘screening’ (e.g. from the lake looking toward shore and half the house is obscured by vegetation or having 50% vegetation on the site). Mr. Wurth said he has tall pine trees on his property with no screening (canopy) until 40’ up the trunk. Peter Gibbs noted the language says “50% of lakeshore frontage”. This is not half of the house being screened, but half of the lot. There was mention of different scenarios of screening and allowable cutting (lot with four trees and cutting down one tree would not require a permit; 70’ of frontage with four trees and two trees are stacked behind each other would need a permit to cut one down because there is not 50% vegetative cover). Mr. Wurth asked for a definition of “screening”. Peter Gibbs read the definition as follows: “A method of visually shielding or obscuring one abutting or nearby structure or parcel from one another.”

 

Jack Milbank, lakeshore resident, questioned making a change in the regulations when there has not been a problem with excessive cutting of trees in the district. The lakeshore is already heavily developed. There was further discussion of existing residents on the lakeshore and the unlikely probability of clear cutting the properties. Kay Kraushaar explained the intent of the language is to find a middle ground, a compromise to protect against excessive cutting by someone at some point in time and yet allow people to landscape their property as they desire. Tucker Holland noted the Planning Commission did not receive any suggested approaches from landowners to consider, only complaints about what has been drafted.  The Planning Commission appreciates constructive suggestions. Bill Shearer recalled he submitted regulations from South Burlington which encouraged planting and rebuilding vegetation for consideration by the Planning Commission for the Shelburne regulations. The Shelburne regulations as currently drafted are difficult to enforce.

 

Bob Lake, lakeshore resident, asked about a lot with no trees planted (just lawn) and the owner wanting to add a screened porch to the house. Reg Gignoux assured property owners will not be penalized for existing situations. Tucker Holland stated the lot owner will not have to plant trees if there are no trees on the lawn, but if a tree is removed it would have to be replaced with another.

 

Dick Elkins acknowledged the first document on cutting restrictions was onerous, but the revision is not. Existing residents likely will not do cutting, but if someone does start cutting, the neighbors are protected. Mr. Elkins agreed existing lots on the lakeshore are pretty much developed as is.  Jeff Jackson interjected the cutting restriction language is another layer for their development after all the time and energy that was spent in developing a forest management plan. Mr. Jackson expressed his disagreement with the cutting regulations, stating he sees them as an assault on lakeshore owners.  Mr. Jackson said in addition he does not need the Planning Commission to tell him if he needs a dock. The Planning Commission is just “chipping away” and it does not sit right with me or the people who are attending the meetings each week on the regulations, stated Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson acknowledged he is complaining about what has been going on for the past four years and the financial impacts.  Peter Gibbs stated the language was added to clarify how many docks are allowed and how much cutting can take place. The existing lots are not in violation. Mr. Jackson pointed out the town does not require screening from the town roads. The lake is federally owned, not town owned. The Planning Commission not wanting to see houses from the lake is unfair. The Planning Commission is trying to regulate what they do not want to see (houses, retaining walls). Mr. Jackson suggested taking the approach of education rather than regulation, a positive approach rather than a negative approach. Lakeshore property owners could come together to discuss the issues. Experts on erosion, phosphorus, plants and vegetation could be brought in to educate everyone. Tucker Holland noted the Planning Commission concurred with a suggestion that was made to provide permit applicants with educational material, such as a lakeshore advisory pamphlet on erosion. A sentence or two could be added to the regulations to differentiate between removal and routine maintenance of vegetation.  Peter Gibbs pointed out the vegetation is coverage as of the effective date of the regulations so existing homeowners can continue with maintenance of their plantings. Jeff Jackson stated there is no mention of removal of invasive species, and this should not be counted toward clearing. Invasive species can stabilize a bank and therefore it is beneficial to just trim them back rather than remove them.

 

Tucker Holland noted the intention of the proposed language pertaining to cutting restrictions was to clarify the existing language and make the regulations less onerous, but there appears to still be confusion. Following further consideration the Planning Commission agreed to retain the existing cutting regulations (not the proposed version) and study the matter further. Staff will modify the zoning document accordingly.

 

Regarding docks in the lakeshore district and retaining walls, the Planning Commission supported the language as proposed.

 

The Planning Commission concurred with the language for signs as proposed.

 

There was discussion of “Manager’s Quarters” and setting a size limit for the unit. The regulations are clear that the use is allowed. Language could be added to state a single unit is allowed for use by a facility manager. The Planning Commission agreed to the following language: “Hotel/motel may include a single accessory residential unit for use by a facility manager.”

 

 

Next meeting: April 10, 2008. Start time: 7:30 p.m.

 

Dean Pierce recalled a prehearing conference was held after the site visit and the Planning Commission again requested a public hearing on two issues: aesthetics and regional growth impact. The Public Service Department said the only issue that will be considered is aesthetics. The Board Officer agreed with the Public Service Dept.’s ruling. April 11, 2008 is the public hearing on the Cole proposal and the issue of aesthetics unless the Planning Commission decides to appeal the Board Officer’s determination.  The Village Attorney feels the town does not have a good chance of prevailing in the appeal.  Reg Gignoux observed it is the cumulative effect over time that creates the problem. Following further discussion the Planning Commission decided not to request a public hearing on the Cole wind turbine.

 

Dean Pierce announced Julie Beth Hinds, South Burlington City Planner, would like to attend the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss the following: 2000 Dorset Street Project and the bigger picture relative to conservation.

 

Thanks and appreciation was extended to Claude LaPierre for his many years of service to the town as a Planning Commissioner. Mr. LaPierre will continue to serve on the Shelburne Development Review Board.  Mr. LaPierre said it has been a pleasure to work with everyone and serve the town over the past 18 years.

 

Tucker Holland extended thanks to the public for their comments and input on the zoning bylaw revisions. The comments are very helpful and result in a good product the Planning Commission can be proud to forward to the Selectboard. Mr. Holland also thanked the Planning Commissioners for all the hours of effort on the document, especially those members who stayed beyond the expiration of their term on the board to finish the work.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.