MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY
SOLID WASTE TASK COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 5, 2004, COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Present: Bill
Pennebaker, Trevor Mance, Jim Mead, Andrew Knafel, Barry Mayer, Karen Mellinger,
Michael Biddy, Jim Serrao, and Mark Young
Absent: Forrest Snyder and Owen Beauchesne
Public: David Mance
Bill called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Trevor made a motion, seconded by
Jim Mead, to approve the minutes of September 21, 2004. Karen noted a correction
in the day of the upcoming Select Board strategic planning meeting. The second
meeting is on Thursday, October 7, 2004, not Wednesday. The minutes were then
approved.
New business: Bill advised the committee that the Planning Commission had
requested consolidation of items 3 and 4 of the language recommendations which
had been suggested to them by the committee. Actions 1 and 2 were rejected by
the Planning Commission. Bill pointed out that there is a close correspondence
between certain provisions in Actions 3 and 4. He suggested possibly adding the
words “and infrastructure” to 3.1 (i.e. “impact on public services and
infrastructure required …”). Discussion began re: section 3.6 as it concerns
setbacks, height, etc. David Mance commented that some of the provisions in that
section would be covered by the state permitting process. Jim Mead pointed out
the difficulty of enforcement of the state regulations on a town level. Upon
questioning, David concurred that in any Act 250 process the State would
consider only the 10 criteria applicable – one of which is compliance with the
Town Plan.
Bill also suggested a change in section 3.6 that would remove “permitted under
Vermont statutes that” in addition to removing “and that do not interfere with
the intended functional use.” This wording had originally been added based on a
recent legislative change in state statute. Karen pointed out that the effective
date of the statute change is September, 2005 and it is unclear at this time
whether that language change will be repealed. She questioned whether we want to
be writing language based on a change that was not yet in effect and will
certainly be challenged.
Trevor and Jim Serrao were opposed to the change in section 3.1. Trevor felt it
was redundant. Andrew asked for clarification as to whether we were going to try
to reach consensus or vote on the changes. As it was clear consensus would not
be reached, Jim moved and Trevor seconded to keep the original language in
section 3.1. The motion failed, with Jim Serrao, Trevor and Mark supporting it,
the other members opposed. Michael then moved and Barry seconded to add the
words “and infrastructure”. The motion passed, with Trevor, Mark and Jim Serrao
opposing, the other members supporting the change. Then Jim Mead moved, seconded
by Andrew, to accept section 3.6 with the language change discussed above.
Further discussion ensued re: setback requirements, building height, etc., as
mentioned in section 3.6. David suggested that the zoning regulations would have
to be changed in order to complement this section. He added that if we are going
to be negotiating bulk regulations regarding solid waste facilities, these
regulations should probably be negotiated on a case by case basis. Andrew
pointed out that we should make this point to the Planning Commission – if the
Town is going to be negotiating these things we need to have some leeway. We
would be delegating responsibility to the Select Board. Bill pointed out that it
seemed to make sense that a larger facility would have a greater impact and
should have stricter requirements. Trevor noted, however, that a large facility
might do a better job of containing its operation than a smaller one – should
they be penalized with stricter requirements? David suggested that you could
make a statement in Section 3.6 that these regulations might be site/operation
specific. Karen called the question, and the motion passed with all in favor.
Discussion then turned to the Rockingham Town Plan changes, which Karen had
provided to the committee members. She pointed out that Rockingham had been
faced with a proposed Casella landfill which would have greatly impacted the
community and the Connecticut River. Casella dropped the proposal after
tremendous public outcry and the town embarked on a study of possible Town Plan
and zoning language changes. Jim Serrao questioned why we needed to be looking
at what other towns have done – he noted that most towns in Vermont do not have
such specific language. Karen pointed out that many towns in Vermont have not
been faced with the issue. She also pointed out that Rockingham spent many
months working with engineers, town officials, geologists and lawyers to come up
with their wording. She noted that most of the language the Shaftsbury SWC has
considered has not dealt with the specific issue of landfills in town. She
pointed out that although Peckham has indicated in a news article that they are
not interested in pursuing the c & d landfill, this remains a future possibility
– particularly with all of the abandoned mine pits in town. The committee
discussed the Rockingham language as it pertains to landfill regulations.
In reviewing Rockingham’s Action Steps, Section 7.C, Andrew suggested wording
similar to “The Town will have the right to hire consultants to verify an
application’s data, and any other information deemed necessary, at the expense
of the applicant”.
Andrew also suggested that the Rockingham Proposed Amendment language be
forwarded to all the Planning Commission members for their review prior to next
Tuesday’s meeting, at which they will be discussing the SWC’s recommendations.
He noted that special mention should be made of Section E in the Rockingham
language which speaks specifically to landfill regulations. Michael added that
the Barre Town Plan language should also be sent to the Planning Commission
members.
Discussion then turned to other possible language changes/additions in the
Shaftsbury Town Plan. Bill presented written thoughts on what language is now
outdated and should be revised. He noted that the committee should be
recommending that the present landfill be closed. He also suggested that a
detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of options for solid waste
disposal be made, possibly by a standing Solid Waste Committee. Jim noted that
recycling should be emphasized, and Trevor suggested that education efforts
around recycling should be mentioned.
Andrew suggested that the Committee review Bill’s suggestions and present them
to the Planning Commission next week during their discussion.
Old Business: Further direction will be sought from the Planning Commission
regarding future studies and recommendations.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.