Joint Board Meeting — Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning
Board
Meeting Minutes — March
28, 2008
Fellowship Hall, 17 Little Mohawk Rd in Shelburne
A duly posted joint meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
Board was held at the Fellowship Hall, 17 Little Mohawk Rd in Shelburne
for the purpose of an "informational meeting" about proposed
zoning by-law changes..
ZBA Present: Joseph Palmeri , John Taylor, William Sweeney
ZBA Absent: Catherine Smith, Laurie MacLeod, Lowell Laporte, Ted Merrill
Planning Board Present: Charles Washer, John Payne, Beth Simmons, Chris
Davenport
Planning Board Absent: Rodney McBride
Visitors: See sign-in sheet
Planning Board Chair Charles Washer called the
meeting to order at 7:00pm and described the purpose of the meeting. Washer called on Taylor, Clerk
of the ZBA, who reported that this was a posted ZBA meeting, and there
were 3 members present, but the ZBA members were there to hear, ask,
and/or answer questions about zoning but it is the Planning Board who
is hosting the meeting.
Washer designated John Payne to chair the remainder of the meeting to
discuss revising the Zoning Bylaws.
Payne presented a 15 minute Powerpoint presentation on the bylaw revisions,
then reviewed the proposed zoning document, use change summary sheet,
and discussed the "new" zoning map.
Payne recognized Palmeri who expressed the support of the ZBA for the
proposed changes.
Questions and comments were taken from those present including:
M Parry: requested a section by section comparison, and stressed the
need for more voter education. Payne handed out a comparison chart to
the group.
L Gould: Concerned about changes to the use table which makes activities
more restrictive; wondered if the uses were asked for by the voters (citing
pig farming) or whether the PB made the change for their own benefit;
Gould feels Payne has personal agenda and developed the use table all
by himself. Payne disagreed. Palmeri described the discussion that went
on between the PB and other boards.
Payne also responded to Gould's comments by pointing out what some might
consider a conflict of interest: Payne has worked with a group who is
hoping to bring a meat processing facility to Shelburne, and although
he will not own it he may invest in such a type of facility in order
to have his farm's beef processed there.
B Simmons: stated that Payne come to the PB last year with a proposal
he had developed and felt this was inappropriate as it should have be
done with all the members of the PB. Washer asked that the meeting focus
on the proposal and not solely on the process which developed the document.
L Gould: Asked why the use table was being updated when there are no
issues in the use table. He feels the PB should have spent time addressing
topics not currently in the bylaws and leave the current parts alone.
Taylor and Palmeri responded for the ZBA that there are issues with
the current use sections including the special permit part of the residential
section, and the contradicting inclusive-exclusive language in the commercial
and industrial sections, which is the subject of legal action in the "Pioneer
Nutritional Formulas vs Mitchell" case.
M Parry: Commented that the process did not seem to be based on "best
practices" but rather arbitrary concerns of the board members. Board
members disagreed cited work with the regional planning staff.
B Simmons: Expressed concerned that the whole process was rushed and
that more outside expertise was needed.
L Gould: Questioned the dimensional schedule and whether it should be
reviewed.
Taylor revisited the four areas of where the ZBA "lobbied" for
changes in order to improve the bylaws: updated, more accurate map; more
clear definitions; description of the special permit criteria; and the
use revisions previously mentioned.
L Flaccus: Expressed appreciation for the work done by the Boards and
she he not only values the outside expertise but the local expertise
as well.
G Dole: Stated that he too was appreciative of all the work by the volunteer
boards. He feels that a deadline or target date is needed to bring what
has been done to the voters, because otherwise the Town will never be
able to move ahead on other issues. He suggested back lot development
as the next issue the PB should bring to the Town.
M Taylor: Supported Dole's comments and encouraged the PB to bring these
items forward and then tackle the more controversial ones.
J Palmeri: Supported the inclusion of the new zoning map. He also listed
some items in the current bylaws which lacked clarity and he supported
the new bylaws as it would clarify many of those items.
As there were no other comments or questions at this time both Boards,
in turn, voted to adjourn at 8:49pm.
Respectfully submitted,
John E Taylor
Clerk Pro-tem
|
