MEMBERS PRESENT:       Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Dennis Webster, Gary von Stange, Kate Lalley, Kay Kraushaar. (Tucker Holland was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Tom Koerner.

In the absence of Tucker Holland, Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

Staff reported most comments at the public hearings held by the Selectboard on the zoning bylaws were directed toward the Village Center and the Mixed Use District. The public hearing process was explained relative to substantive changes by the Selectboard and opportunity for the Planning Commission to comment. Kay Kraushaar suggested prior to a rewrite a meeting with the Selectboard be held to discuss their concerns and have a dialogue on the proposed changes. Peter Gibbs stated a subset of the two boards could meet. Dick Elkins said he has concern about the different interpretations of the regulations that were presented to the Selectboard. The interpretations may not be what the Planning Commission intended. There was agreement the language should be clarified if there are different interpretations so the bylaws state exactly what is desired.

 

Tom Koerner urged meeting with the Selectboard to discuss the changes so everyone has the same understanding of the bylaws.

 

 

Dean Pierce noted comment on the Lakeshore Overlay District has not yet been heard by the Selectboard. Remaining sections of the bylaws to be covered include Lakeshore, Flood Plain, Water Course, General Regulations, Definitions.  Regarding building height, there was a graphic presentation (not visual using balloons) to the Selectboard. The Selectboard may still want a visual representation.

 

Tom Koerner asked if the Planning Commission considered expanding design review requirements into the entire parcel in the village rather than on just a portion. Dean Pierce stated the Planning Commission would have to discuss changing the boundaries of the design review district. Mr. Koerner commented credit for exceptional design (Section 841.3) could be a ‘sticky wicket’ down the road. The Planning Commission should consider a vehicle to extend the design review district so quantifying or qualifying exceptional design does not fall on the Development Review Board.  There was further discussion of the ‘exceptional design’ language and density bonuses. Dick Elkins felt the town should keep it simple and allow density on a piece of property that is desired. Kay Kraushaar agreed there is ambiguity in the design criteria, and the density has been increased in the village area already so density bonuses should not provided too. Tom Koerner observed higher density and building height could be an issue outside the village, such as in the Commerce/Industry District. Dean Pierce noted exceptional design has been in the bylaws in other districts, for example Residential 2 (density bonus granted for exceptional design).  Peter Gibbs suggested funds be requested to hire a consultant to get the answers the town needs to make a decision so the matter is not unresolved a year from now.

 

There was further discussion of building height. One issue is the ability of firefighters to help people in the building if the ladder is only 28’ in length. It was noted the Fire Chief felt if the building has a sprinkler system this will allow time for the ladder truck from South Burlington to arrive on scene. The definition of building height relative to the average finished grade to the ridge and to the mid-point of the ridge versus the proposed grade to the average height between the peak and eave was reviewed. Tom Koerner suggested the building on Allen Drive being built by John Larkin might provide an example of what would meet Shelburne’s regulations.

 

Dean Pierce announced the planning consultant, Mike Munson, will meet with the Planning Commission in August or September due to the delay of the zoning bylaws with the Selectboard.

Dean Pierce reported the research process ran from September, 1997 to February 2001 to figure out the size of the treatment plant, demand, and useful life. A map of the service area was developed.

 

There was discussion of conditions being met to extend outside the sewer district. Dennis Webster observed there are conservation areas deliberately left out of the sewer service area, but the request involves a conservation area that is within the service area. Dean Pierce explained a district sets the outer boundary. There are areas within that boundary that will not be developed.  The Town Manager will attend the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss the matter. Gary von Stange suggested getting information from Mr. Tiballi before the meeting with the Town Manager to determine if a correction is needed. Kay Kraushaar added it should be determined if there were legal agreements when the land was subdivided. Ms. Kraushaar recalled the Planning Commission was clear the only reason to extend the sewer district was to address a failed system. Dick Elkins felt sewer service should not be on conserved land because growth will be encouraged.  Mr. Tiballi has the right to agricultural use of the land, but it is not certain the town is obligated to extend the sewer line. The consensus of the Planning Commission is to wait until further information on the matter is receive before meeting with the Town Manager.

 

There was discussion of the allocation ordinance. Capacity is allocated in three year blocks.  An estimate of demand and the impact of the zoning changes on demand are needed to determine the capacity available and if the treatment plants can operate at the current rate of dispersement.

 

 7.        ACT 250 PROJECT UPDATE

Gary von Stage announced due to recent changes relative to the project there is no longer the need to recuse himself from the discussion.

 

Dean Pierce reported on June 5^th there was a meeting with the project developer who asked for a meeting with the Planning Commission in the near future to get advice on changes the Planning Commission feels would make the project acceptable to Shelburne.  Gary von Stange expressed reservation about providing an opinion on an application that is not before the Planning Commission for review. Also, it is doubtful the Town Attorney will find the situation acceptable at this procedural juncture since the town is in legal proceedings on the project. It was noted the Planning Commission did hear a presentation on the proposal in the past.  There was further discussion of the Planning Commission providing input on the project. The Planning Commission is a policy making board and does not review projects. The Development Review Board reviews projects. Kate Lalley pointed out if the Planning Commission has party status at Act 250 it would be nice to know what is being planned since the development is on the town’s border. The consensus of the Planning Commission is to allow a 15 minute presentation by the developer with the Planning Commission reserving the right not to comment.

 

Positive comment was made on the active community/town center and the Little League baseball program.

 

July 10, 2008 at 7 p.m.

 

Copies of the journal were given to the Planning Commission for perusal.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.