Joint Board Meeting — Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning
Board
Meeting Minutes — March
31, 2008
Memorial Hall
A duly posted joint meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
Board was held Memorial Hall, 51 Bridge St, Shelburne for the purpose
of an "informational meeting" about proposed zoning by-law
changes.
ZBA Present: Joseph Palmeri , John Taylor, Ted Merrill
ZBA Absent: Catherine Smith, Laurie MacLeod, Lowell Laporte, William
Sweeney
Planning Board Present: Charles Washer, John Payne, Beth Simmons, Chris
Davenport, Rodney McBride
Planning Board Absent: None
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. During the presentation
resident Richard Dils questioned Payne as to whether the Town was included
in a suit between 2 landowners. Payne asked that questions and comments
wait until the end of the presentation, which Washer confirmed. At the
conclusion of his presentation Payne briefly discussed the meat-processing
venture being discussed in Shelburne and his involvement in their feasibility
study.
The Board took questions and comments:
M Parry: Questioned the change to the industrial district stating that
by dropping the old language in section 7 it "leaves the barn door
wide open" for any industrial development anywhere in Town. Payne
responded that many industrial uses that are allowed by right are being
changed to by special permit giving the residents input. Parry stated
that where many additional items which the PB needed to add to get the
document "right".
M Taylor: Inquired about Section 14 and whether those environmental
controls addressed Parry's concerns. ZBA commented that Section 14 was
one part.
ZBA member John Taylor reviewed the difference between a use allowed
by right and one allowed by special permit, the special permit process,
and the "balance" that the PB must achieve to not be too onerous
so as to discourage business growth, but have enough regulation to be
able to address town concerns about a large scale development.
R Dils: Questioned Payne as to whether this whole document was his personal "summer
project" and suggested that the rest of the PB had no input. Payne
declined to respond.
J Wall: Expressed concern about the process and that his concerns are
not being addressed by the PB. He requested that the PB members explain
why they voted as they did when asked whether to bring the matter to
public hearing.
Washer intervened and re-assumed the role as Chair of the meeting, and
stated that he could not force any member to explain to Wall why they
voted as they did.
Wall insisted that Chris Davenport explain why has abstained from the
vote (of March 27th where the four members of the PB voted 2-1 with 1
abstention to bring the revisions to public hearing). Washer asked Davenport
if he wished to respond. Davenport agreed.
Davenport spoke about the process, and that he felt the PB did not fully
discuss and understand all the changes. He felt he could not support
the revisions based on those concerns, however he did not want to block
the voters from having a chance to hear both sides of the debate. He
stressed that voters must read and understand the document before they
vote, stressing the changes to the special permit criteria, definitions,
and use table. Davenport wants the Town to develop regulations which
will support business growth and expand the tax base.
Wall questioned Washer as to how the revisions can move ahead when,
as he figured it, 60% of the PB does not support them. Washer pointed
out that two of the three members who voted were in support.
R Dils: Stressed the need to study further. He stated changes are needed "but
this is not the document".
M Parry: Reviewed that there are "shades of gray" in the document,
and further he does not support the changes to the parking regulations.
Payne responded that any changes shown in the parking regulations were
his error in not removing the proposed changes from the document. The
changes were discussed last year but he agreed that they had not been
discussed again during this revision process.
J Taylor: Supports the changes to the use table. He comments that during
the process over the last two years he believes the PB has made numerous
changes based on public comment and discussion between the PB and ZBA.
He feels that when there was extensive debate or disagreement on whether
a use should be allowed or not it was frequently added as a use "allowed
by special permit" which permitted discussion on a case-by-case
basis.
K Gould: Objects to the process used by the PB, and also opposes changes
to the language relative to special permits. She stated that the current
bylaw section 5.2.4 allows special permits for the listed uses "by
right" and the changes would totally change the special permitting
process.
J Palmeri: Responded to Gould's review of bylaw section 5.2.4 by stating
that he does not see any wording that special permits are allowed "by
right". Palmeri reviewed the reasons for adding special permit criteria,
better mapping, use tables, and more clear definitions by citing complaints
and legal challenge to the current bylaws and the need to be more clear
for the ZBA when granting permits and other decisions.
K Gould: Explained that her life as a property owner has been spent
building equity and the changes reduce her equity. She disagree with
Palmeri's interpretation of the special permit process. She stated that
resident must recognize that the bylaw revisions present a "huge
change" in the ability for residents to be allowed to do things "by
right".
L Gould: Questioned why the PB did not focus on sections such as section
12 (mobile homes) which is very difficult to understand. Washer responded
that the PB did discuss the section but did not make any changes to it
in this revision.
K Parsons: Spoke to the question about the suit against the Town of
Shelburne that is part of the Pioneer Nutritional Formulas vs Mitchell
action. Parsons says that one issue is that there is no special permit
criteria outlined in the current bylaw, only in the ZBA regulations.
Secondly, the bylaws can no longer use the catch-all language (i.e in
7.2.6) that is present in the commercial and industrial use sections.
He says that the proposal has very standard language (i.e. as used in
many towns) and has the needed criteria. Parsons stated he opposed the
changes proposed last year due to their complexity but this year the
PB & ZBA "has done a yeoman's job of improving the document".
R. Dils: Suggested the PB adopt the change to the Special Permit section
only (new section 6). He further stated that the other language changes
were too "black and white" and that he favors some ambiguity
in regulation. He feels proposal is too restrictive. He also criticized
the revision process.
J Taylor: Spoke to contradict others earlier comments that this represents
a major change in the Town's zoning and special permit process. He cited
that special permitting is regulated under Chapter 40A and the change
was the introduction of the special permit criteria into Shelburne's
bylaws, and this was a positive step not a negative one.
Washer closed the informational meeting at 9:05PM.
Merrill moved and the ZBA voted to adjourn at 9:10pm.
Respectfully submitted,
John E Taylor
Clerk Pro-tem |
