MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY
SOLID WASTE TASK COMMITTEE
AUGUST 17, 2004, COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Present: Bill
Pennebaker, Trevor Mance, Jim Mead, Forrest Snyder, Barry Mayer, Karen Mellinger,
Michael Biddy, Jim Serrao, Owen Beauchesne and Mark Young
Absent: Andrew Knafel
Public: Rachel and Ed Legacy
Bill called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The minutes of August 3, 20004
were approved.
New business: Bill and Jim M. reported on the BCRC meeting of August 12, 2004.
Bill, Cinda Morse and Jim M. attended the meeting, at which state officials were
present to discuss the state review of the BCRC SWIP (solid waste implementation
plan). Jim noted that it seems the state is requiring a large amount of revision
to the plan in order to bring it up to a level the state will approve. The state
recommended the plan have a clearer focus on reuse and recycling, in addition to
increased education efforts regarding recycling. Jim noted the BCRC may have to
hire another individual to deal with the responses to the state suggestions.
Bill noted that he asked the state officials what impact the new phrasing of the
statute language (24 VSA, 4413) might have. No one at the meeting was aware of
the new wording. Jim M. advised that Buzz Surwillo (VT Agency of Natural
Resources, Solid Waste Division) had come down to look at the landfill. Jim is
not sure how much longer the state will allow Shaftsbury to keep it open.
Trevor asked Bill and Jim M. whether there was going to be state money provided
to do the things the state was requiring, i.e., recycling and educational
programs. It was unclear whether there would be money available. Reuse programs
such as exist in Pownal and Hoosick Falls were discussed. Jim M. referred to a
recycled paint program that is very successful in Chittenden County. Perhaps we
could send our paint there instead of paying Clean Harbors on hazardous waste
days. The impression is that the state is trying to ensure that regional plans
adequately provide for the disposal of all types of waste in as convenient a
manner as possible. Karen asked about enforcement issues as regards the BCRC, as
it seems it is not the BCRC’s job to enforce. Bill noted that the state could
hold back money if participating towns do not accept the approved BCRC plan.
Old Business: Bill then presented for the committee’s consideration the three
versions (8/10, 8/16 and 8/17/04) of wording for a possible host town agreement
(HTA) Barry commented that he recalled from a previous meeting that any HTA
would have language that allowed for flexibility when a future project was being
considered by the Planning Commission. Bill noted that at a recent Planning
Commission meeting, when HTA language was discussed, David Mance questioned
whether a HTA should apply for other facilities besides solid waste. Forrest
said his understanding was that as a committee we would make suggestions to the
Planning Commission and they would make any final decision regarding language
changes. Forrest suggested that it is smart for the town to have flexibility.
Bill commented that our charge is to suggest possible changes re: solid waste
only – it is not in our charter to study HTAs for other facilities that might
have a negative impact in town.
As the committee reviewed the three versions, Bill advised that Andrew (who was
unable to attend the meeting) had sent him an e-mail re: the language
provisions. Andrew expressed concern with Action #4 where the applicant is
called upon to pay for impact studies. Perhaps, Andrew wrote, there should be
more latitude there, more flexibility. Should a small operation be considered
the same was a larger one? The 8/16 version revised this section somewhat.
Forrest advised that the standards should be the same, no matter what size the
facility, although he agreed that the cost factor could be a burden to a small
operator.
Bill called attention to the 8/17/04 draft (a revision of Action #3 or #4) which
perhaps is less rigid than the previous drafts. Trevor and Jim noted that they
preferred the 8/17 draft. Forrest preferred the 8/16 draft, commenting that
there was less ambiguity, “less wiggle room”.
Jim S. offered the suggestion that the word contract be substituted for HTA. He
said that a HTA is something that is done ahead of time – it says you are
predetermining certain things. He asked who would negotiate the HTA – the
Planning Commission or the Select Board. Mark noted that the Planning Commission
would never enter into a contract. The Planning Commission looks at the language
in the Town Plan as they review any proposal before them. He added that the more
specific the guidelines are in the Town Plan, the more helpful it is as the
Planning Commission reviews any proposal. He believes the guidelines are
critical for the Planning Commission. Jim S. again asked who had the ultimate
authority to negotiate a HTA and at what point would it happen. It was the
understanding of most of the committee members that the ultimate authority lies
with the Select Board, as the legislative authority of the town. Trevor
envisions a HTA being negotiated during the permitting process with the town.
Mike asked about the status of the Town of Barre plan amendment, which is very
specific. Bill advised that the amendment is in place. There was some discussion
over the possibility of a developer suing a town that sets certain requirements
through a HTA. Karen observed that state statute does allow for the negotiation
of HTAs. She noted that she sees the specific list as guidelines to be
considered, but not set in stone.
Possible wording changes were then discussed. Forrest suggested removing the
first sentence in #4 which refers to state statute. Also, in #4.1 he suggested
striking “…and for the maintenance of….completion.” from the first sentence. In
the second sentence, he would strike “and related maintenance”. In #4.2 he asked
why we are talking only about residentially zoned properties. Why not all? Bill
responded that people who live in an industrial zone should expect an impact
other than what is in a residential zone. Michael pointed out that land in an
industrial zone would be less expensive to purchase. Jim S. noted that if you
bought a home ¼ mile from an industrial zone, you should know there would be
some impact. Barry Mayer pointed out that not only residential zones are
impacted, but commercial zones as well. Bill observed that it is difficult to
ferret out every detail. Trevor noted that there is only one industrial zone in
town – Airport Road and North Road) and people living in those areas should be
aware there will be some impact. In considering the wording, Forrest suggested
changing “increase in traffic” (in #4.2, last sentence) to “adverse changes in
traffic”. He also suggested combining #3 and #4. And in #4.9, his preference
would be to strike reference to specific statutes. Bill noted that these
facilities (solid waste) have a special status under state law and that is why
the statute language is there. Barry Mayer observed that the statute reference
“sort of validates our stance here”. It was agreed the references to state
statute in #4 would be retained.
Bill noted that there is one more meeting before we present to the Planning
Commission on September 14. Owen made a motion that we vote on the different
versions and that Andrew’s vote be included at the next meeting. Forrest
seconded. Karen pointed out that the committee had previously agreed to work on
consensus rather than taking votes. Owen then withdrew his motion. It was agreed
that members would indicate which courses of action they could support. If they
could support more than one course, that would be noted. Preferences for the
four different courses of action were noted as follows:
#1 – 1 member supported (Jim Serrao)
#2 – 3 members supported (Barry Mayer, Trevor Mance, Owen Beauchesne
#3 – 8 members supported (Bill Pennebaker, Owen Beauchesne, Trevor Mance, Karen
Mellinger, Mark Young, Mike Biddy, Jim Mead, Barry Mayer
#4 – 7 members supported (Mike Biddy, Jim Mead, Mark Young, Barry Mayer, Forrest
Snyder, Bill Pennebaker, Karen Mallinger
Bill then presented a list of further action recommendations to be considered at
the next meeting on September 7, 2004. They included questions re: landfill
closure and the future uses of the landfill property, pay as you throw
recommendations, recycling, a Solid Waste Committee, and any other possible
changes to the Town Plan wording. Bill pointed out that pay as you throw and
recycling were strongly supported by the state. The committee agreed that
continuation of a Solid Waste Committee in some capacity in town was a good
idea.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 p.m.