REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, February 18, :00 p.m. CCRPC Offices; 110 W. Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT We anticipate a very short meeting so if you prefer not to drive in, members can join the meeting by teleconference. Please call in at (712) When prompted give access code: #. We do still need to have a quorum to take these actions. DELIBERATIVE AGENDA 1. Call to Order and roll call attendance 2. Public Comment Period on Items NOT on the Agenda 3. Approve Minutes of January 21, 2015 Meeting* (Action; 1 min.) 4. Major TIP Amendments - Warn for Public Hearing (Action: 5 min.) 5. Executive Director s Updates (Information; 1 min.) a. Monthly Project Status Report* (sent separately) 6. Committee/Liaison Activities & Reports * (Information, 5 min.) a. Executive Committee (draft minutes Jan 21 & Feb. 4, 2015)* i. Act 250/Sec 248 letters* b. Transportation Advisory Committee (draft minutes Feb 3, 2015)* c. Planning Advisory Committee (draft minutes Jan. 14, 20154)* d. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Committee (meeting notes Jan. 29, 2015)* 7. Members Items, Other Business (Information, 1 min.) 8. Adjourn The Feb 16th Chittenden County RPC meeting will NOT be taped by CCTV, since we anticipate a very short meeting and CCTV is busy taping town meeting forums. Upcoming Meetings - Unless otherwise noted, all meetings are held at our offices: 2 nd UPWP Committee Meeting: Wednesday, February 18, :15 (after Board meeting) Transportation Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 4, 2015; 9:00 a.m. Executive Committee, Wednesday, March 4, 2015; 5:45 p.m. Planning Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 11, 2015; 2:30-4:30 p.m. CCRPC Meeting - Wednesday, March 18, 2015; 6:00 p.m. 3 rd UPWP Committee Meeting Thursday, March 19, 2015; 5:30 p.m.

2 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: CCRPC Offices; 110 W. Canal Street, Suite 202, Winooski, VT Members: 9 Bolton, Absent 21 St. George, Barbara young 10 Buels Gore, Absent 22 Shelburne, John Zicconi 11 Burlington, Andy Montroll 23 S. Burlington, Sandy Dooley (6:08) 12 Charlotte, Jim Donovan 24 Underhill, Brian Bigelow 13 Colchester, Marc Landry 25 Westford, Dave Tilton 14 Essex, Jeff Carr 26 Williston, Chris Roy 15 Essex Junction, Dan Kerin 27 Winooski, Mike O Brien 16 Hinesburg, Andrea Morgante 28 VTrans, Amu Bell 17 Huntington, Barbara Elliott 29 Socio/Econ/Housing, Justin Dextradeur 18 Jericho, Catherine McMains 30 Conservation/Environment, Don Meals 19 Milton, Absent 31 Industrial/Business, Absent 20 Richmond, Chris Granda 32 Agriculture, No Representative Ex-Officio (non-voting): 35 Burlington Int l Airport, Absent 36 CCTA, Absent 37 FHWA, Absent Others: 41 Michele Boomhower, VTrans 42 Matthew Langham, VTrans 43 Everett Marshall, Huntington Plan. Comm. Staff: 49 Charlie Baker, Executive Director 50 Dan Albrecht, Senior Planner 51 Pam Brangan, Senior Planner 52 Eleni Churchill, Sr. Trans. Plan. Engineer 53 Forest Cohen, Business Manager 54 Bryan Davis, Senior Trans. Planner FTA, Absent Railroad Industry, Absent Diane Meyerhoff, Third Sector Assoc. Scott Moody, CCTV Chris Dubin, Transportation Planner Bernadette Ferenc, Trans. Business Mgr. Christine Forde, Senior Trans. Planner Emma Long, Communication Manager Regina Mahony, Senior Planner Melanie Needle, Senior Planner 1. Call to Order; Changes to the Agenda The meeting was called to order at 6:00PM by the Chair, Andy Montroll. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Public Comment Period on Items NOT on the Agenda. There were none. 3. Approve Consent Agenda (MPO Business). There were no items on the Consent Agenda. 4. Approve Minutes of November 19, 2014 Meeting DAN KERIN MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY JEFF CARR, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS FROM JIM DONOVAN AND JUSTIN DEXTRADEUR. CCRPC Regular Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 1

3 Public Forum for FY16 UPWP Project Solicitation Bryan Davis of the CCRPC explained that the public forum is an opportunity for residents to bring townwide or regional project ideas to the CCRPC for FY16. Through Front Porch Forum postings, residents were encouraged to work with municipal staff and elected officials to bring ideas forward. Bryan asked that the forum stay open for the meeting s entirety. Chair Montroll agreed to do so. Chris Granda of Richmond shared an idea from resident Maureen Thomas. She asked that the Town consider a local bus route to serve Richmond, Jonesville (especially the mobile home park), and Richmond Center to allow residents to access the Park & Ride LINK Express without driving. This service would allow children and seniors to access the Richmond library and market. During discussion, it was determined that Richmond is not part of CCTA; member municipalities pay to provide bus service and work with CCTA to develop routes. Bryan Davis noted that Richmond is discussing bus service. 6. FY15 Mid-Year Work Program and Budget Adjustment Charlie Baker explained that the organization is half-way through the fiscal year and the mid-year adjustment allows us to forecast our budget through the end of June. Charlie reviewed the status of the project list. Bernie Ferenc noted that VTrans and FHWA have agreed to allocate an additional $70,000 in PL funds to cover the budget; this amount is not shown in the handout. JEFF CARR MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY MARC LANDRY TO APPROVE THE FY15 MID-YEAR WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Approval of Huntington Town Plan Regina Mahoney explained that the Huntington Selectboard approved the Town Plan in September and the PAC reviewed it in November of 2013 and January of The PAC recommends approval. She introduced Everett Marshall of the Huntington Planning Commission. Everett explained that not all comments were addressed in the plan due to timing issues; but they will be addressed in the next iteration of the plan. There was discussion about affordable housing targets; the Planning Commission is currently revising the Town s regulations and will address affordable housing. JIM DONOVAN MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY DAVE TILTON, TO APPROVE HUNTINGTON S TOWN PLAN AND CONFIRM THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON S PLANNING PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOTE OF THE MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES. 8. Resolution to Recognize Michele Boomhower s 6 Years of Service. Andy Montroll read the attached resolution recognizing Michele Boomhower. Jeff Carr, Marc Landry, and Charlie Baker all thanked Michele for her tireless work on behalf of the communities and the region. Michele apologized for her hasty departure; leaving was a difficult decision, but she ultimately decided to take the opportunity to serve Vermont communities in a new way. She noted that the VTrans Secretary recognizes the importance of Chittenden County. Michele thanked the Board and staff for all the support over the years and welcomed the opportunity to continue working together. JEFF CARR MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY JIM DONOVAN, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION HONORING MICHELE BOOMHOWER. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CCRPC Regular Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 2

4 Resolution to Recognize Melanie Needle s 10 Years of Service Andy Montroll read the attached resolution recognizing Melanie Needle. JEFF CARR MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY CATHERINE MCMAINS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION HONORING MELANIE NEEDLE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Approve Prioritization of District Leveling Projects Christine Forde explained that these minor paving projects, done by the District, provide a thin layer of pavement to improve travel. The CCRPC project prioritization ranked four projects identified by VTrans: US7 (Colchester-Milton), US2 (Bolton), Vermont 2A (Essex-Colchester), and Vermont 2A (St. George- Williston). JEFF CARR MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY MIKE O BRIEN, TO APPROVE THE PRIORITIZED DISTRICT LEVELING PROJECT LIST AND FORWARD IT TO VTRANS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ONE ABSTENTION FROM AMY BELL. 11. Chair Appointments to FY16 UPWP Committee Chair Andy Montroll made appointments for the FY16 UPWP Committee, including: Chris Roy, Williston (Chair), Board; John Zicconi, Shelburne, Board; Andrea Morgante, Hinesburg, Board; Justin Rabidoux, South Burlington, TAC; Barbara Elliott, Huntington, TAC; Joss Besse, Bolton, PAC; Ken Belliveau, Williston, PAC; Amy Bell, VTrans; Chris Jolly, FHWA (ex-officio, non-voting); and Meredith Birkett, CCTA (ex-officio, non-voting). 12. ECOS Indicators Report Melanie Needle of the CCRPC staff created an ECOS Scorecard to provide updated progress indicators. She demonstrated the online tool which will be available soon to the public and an outreach effort is underway. Sandy Dooley suggested that the South Burlington Energy Committee s proposal to the Georgetown Energy Prize be included in the indicators, as well as the Champlain Housing Trust s Harbor Place facility for the homeless. 13. Executive and MPO Directors Updates 13a) Legislature/Legislative Breakfast: The event was successful and will be held again. 13b) FY16 UPWP Project Applications are due Jan c) Organizational Transition: Eleni and Christine will be interim Transportation Co-Managers and Regina will be interim Comprehensive Planning Manager. Charlie will review the budget and may hire one or two entry-level planners. The Executive Committee appointed Charlie as Interim MPO Director. 13d) Monthly Project Status Report (to be distributed separately) 14. Committee/Liaison Activities & Reports: Included in the Board packet. There was discussion of the new Act 250 Criterion 9L, historic settlement patterns. This criterion aims to control sprawl, although the definitions are still being developed. CCRPC staff recommended that the definitions not be determined now; the Legislature may revisit the criterion this year. Sandy Dooley noted a discussion in the PAC minutes regarding more clarity for vesting. The group was in favor of leaving it up to each municipality. Municipal planners weren t as concerned as our CCRPC committee. PAC thought it was OK. We proposed that the rule be more uniform/consistent. CCRPC Regular Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 3

5 Members Items/Other Business: There were none. 16. Adjourn Any Montroll closed the Public Forum for the FY16 UPWP at 7:41. JEFF CARR MADE A MOTION, DULY SECONDED BY CHRIS ROY, TO ADJOURN AT 7:42PM. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Diane Meyerhoff Attachments: 1-Huntington Town Plan Resolution 2/3-Resolutions for Michele and Melanie CCRPC Regular Meeting Minutes January 21, 2015 Page 4

6

7 - RESOLUTION HONORING MICHELE BOOMHOWER - WHEREAS, Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), hired Michele A. Boomhower on September 29, 2008 to be their Executive Director; and WHEREAS, Michele Boomhower has earned the respect of her colleagues by demonstrating leadership during the 2009 move to Winooski and the merger of CCMPO & CCRPC and upholding the highest professional standards for CCRPC and Chittenden County municipalities; and WHEREAS, Michele Boomhower has led numerous major projects for CCRPC including: managing the transportation planning efforts; development of our annual work programs; Tropical Storm Irene recovery efforts; organizing and overseeing the CIRC Alternatives Task Force leading to two national awards; Logistics Co-Chair for the 2014 National Tools of the Trade Conference held in Burlington; and WHEREAS, throughout her career at CCRPC, Michele Boomhower has generously shared her expertise for planning and provided invaluable guidance on complex transportation issues with staff, Commissioners and municipal officials; and WHEREAS, Michele Boomhower s kind and generous heart, sense of humor, and thoughtfulness will be missed by staff, Commissioners and municipal officials; now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION thanks Michele Boomhower for her outstanding work, dedication, professionalism and high ethical standards during her six plus years with CCRPC and wishes her well in her new positon at the Vermont Agency of Transportation. ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 IN WINOOSKI, VERMONT ANDREW H. MONTOLL, CHAIR

8 RESOLUTION HONORING MELANIE NEEDLE WHEREAS, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) hired Melanie Needle on December 13, 2004; and WHEREAS, Melanie Needle has provided outstanding efforts in serving the CCRPC Commission and Chittenden County Municipalities; and WHEREAS, over the past 10 years she has overseen many special projects, including: Playing a key role in the developing the 2013 ECOS Plan Leading the creation and annual updating of ECOS indicators Conducting numerous build-out analysis for our member municipalities Initiated CCRPC involvement in projects such as STAR and Vermontivate Leadership Champlain Class of 2014 Leadership Champlain Board member Leading CCRPC s Energy and Climate program WHEREAS, throughout her career at CCRPC, Melanie Needle has always been positive, professional and held high ethical standards in her work, thereby earning the respect and gratitude of her peers, municipalities and the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION celebrates Melanie Needle for her outstanding work, positive attitude, dedication, professionalism, and support of the leadership over the last 10 years and looks forward to many more years working together. ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 IN WINOOSKI, VERMONT ANDREW H. MONTROLL, CHAIR

9 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission February 18, 2015 Agenda Item 4: Action Item FY2015 Transportation Improvement Program Major Amendments Issues: Make the changes listed below to the FY TIP. Amendments FY15-14 and FY15-15 are defined as Major Amendments and required a Public Hearing. Amendments FY15-16 and FY15-17 are defined as minor amendments and can be approved by the CCRPC Board. These proposed changes are summarized in Attachment 1. Essex Junction Paving (Project HP124, Amendment FY15-14): Description of TIP Change: Add a new project to the TIP in FY15 for resurfacing the Class I routes listed below. Add $280,000 in federal funds for PE in FY15 and $4,200,000 for CON in FY16. Addition of a new project is defined as a major amendment according to CCRPC s TIP Amendment Policy. VT 2A, from the Williston town line and extending northerly miles VT 15, from Susie Wilson Road and extending easterly miles, including the jug-handle (0.073 mi.) VT 117, from the VT2A/VT15 intersection and extending easterly miles. Reason for Change: VTrans added this project to the paving program. Willison Park and Ride (Project IN004A, Amendment FY15-15) Description of TIP Change: Increase the right of way cost for this project from $300,000 to $1,628,000. Add $1,328,000 in federal funds in FY15. This changes results in a total project cost increase of 66% which is defined as a major amendment. Reason for Change: The $300,000 right of way estimate was added as a placeholder before a location for this park and ride was selected. The estimate has just been updated with actual project costs. Champlain Parkway, Burlington (Project HC001, Amendment FY15-16) Description of TIP Change: Delay construction funds for Champlain Parkway from FY16 to FY17 and reduce preliminary engineering funding FY16. Make the following changes to the TIP: Remove $540,000 in preliminary engineering funds from FY16 because the TIP contains more funds than are needed for preliminary engineering in FY16. Remaining in the TIP for preliminary engineering in FY16 is $1,500,000. Move $6,120,000 in construction funds from FY16 to FY19, to match the current project schedule. The funds are being removed from FY16 because they are not needed in that year. The funds are moving to FY19 because the TIP already has construction funding in FY17 and FY18.

10 VT117 Paving, Essex-Richmond (Project HP098, Amendment FY15-17) Description of TIP Change: Move $2,460,000 in construction funds from FY15 to FY16. $3,812,000 remains in FY15. Reason for Change: This project is scheduled to perform drainage and slope work in 2015 with paving to take place in This TIP amendment is being proposed to align the TIP with the current project schedule. The funds in FY15 are needed by other Chittenden County Projects. TAC Recommendation: For more information contact: Recommend that the Commission warn a Public Hearing for Williston Park and Ride and Essex Junction Paving for the March Board meeting. Recommend that the Commission approve TIP amendments for Champlain Parkway, Burlington and VT117 Paving, Essex-Richmond. Christine Forde cforde@ccrpcvt.org or ext. 13 Attachment 1 Summary of Proposed TIP Changes February, 2015 Summary of Proposed TIP Changes March 2015 FY15 Federal Funds FY16 Federal Funds FY17 Federal Funds FY18 Federal Funds Proposed FY19 Federal Funds Essex Junction Paving New Project $280,000 $4,200,000 Williston Park and Ride $300,000 $1,628,000 $1,456,560 Champlain Parkway -- Engineering and Right-of- Way Champlain Parkway -- Construction VT117 Paving, Essex- Richmond $1,000,000 $6,272,000 $3,812,000 $2,040,000 $1,500,000 $6,120,000 $12,484,800 $6,367,248 $6,120,000 $2,460,000 Notes: Items highlighted in red indicate proposed changes to the TIP and strike-out items indicates TIP content before the proposed changes. FY19 is not part of the current four year TIP.

11 CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Time: 5:30 p.m. Place: CCRPC Offices; 110 W. Canal Street, Suite 202; Winooski. VT Present: Andy Montroll, Chair Chris Roy, Vice Chair Debra Kobus, Secretary Treasurer (via phone) Andrea Morgante, At-Large John Zicconi, At-Large (5:37) Lou Mossey, Past Chair Charlie Baker, Executive Director Forest Cohen, Business Manager Bernie Ferenc, Transportation Business Manager We called Debra Kobus so she could join the meeting via telephone. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by the Chair, Andy Montroll. 1. Changes to the Agenda/Members Items: There were none. 2. Organization Transition. Charlie said staff reviewed several organizational structures and is proposing a two manager structure. He is proposing that Regina be the land use manager and Eleni and Christine co-manage the transportation program in the interim. There is interest on the transportation side to see if co-managers work vs. one manager. Charlie talked about evaluating in-house candidates on both sides as we look to make permanent hires. He asked members if they feel the two manager structure would work. Members expressed concern about co-managers and feel one transportation manager would work best. When asked how this might impact the budget, Charlie said Michele s replacement would be downgraded and the land use manager would be slightly increased, so it should net out to no significant impact. There was discussion about hiring junior staff as well. We received notification of a new transportation grant which is more engineering and our engineering staff could do it, so we d hire a junior position to help with other transportation tasks. A land use planner position is needed because we did not replace Paul. He wants to be sure it s sustainable and right now it looks okay, but we ve only done the first draft for FY16. When asked about workload, Charlie noted that in the interim, their duties will remain the same with some additional work. We ll be moving projects along, and the manager position would do the evaluations. We d split it into three with Charlie overseeing administrative and communication staff and each of the managers; and they in turn would oversee land use and transportation respectively. He did let staff know that we d make sure we hire the right person. Andy feels the organization sounds good. Charlie noted that we ll advertise in-house first and then if we can t fill it in-house, we d go outside. When asked about pay structure, Charlie noted that we re waiting for the compensation study. This change really didn t come early enough to include in our compensation study. We hope there is enough time to send the Executive Committee proposed changes to the Personnel Policy for your February meeting. Members agreed that this is a good approach. Lou asked if we should provide training for new managers and perhaps other staff to prepare them. Charlie noted that we have been supporting & encouraging leadership training through Leadership Champlain (Dan and Melanie) and Vermont Leadership Institute (VLI) Regina last year and Eleni this year. 3. Adjournment: LOU MOSSEY MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY JOHN ZICCONI, TO ADJOURN AT 5:52 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Bernadette Ferenc

12 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Executive Committee Meeting Minutes DRAFT Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Time: 5:45 p.m. Place: CCRPC Offices, 110 W. Canal Street, Suite 202; Winooski, VT Present: Andy Montroll, Chair Chris Roy, Vice Chair (5:56) Debra Kobus, Secretary-Treasurer Andrea Morgante, At-Large Lou Mossey, Immediate Past Chair Charlie Baker, Executive Director Forest Cohen, Business Manager Regina Mahony, Planning Program Manager Bernadette Ferenc, Trans. Business Manager The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by the Chair, Andy Montroll. 1. Changes to the Agenda; Members Items. Debra asked that we add Board Development Committee to Executive Director s Report. Charlie asked that there be an executive session to discuss personnel matters. 2. Approval of January 7, 2015 Executive Committee meeting minutes. LOU MOSSEY MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ANDREA MORGANTE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, MOTION CARRIED WITH DEBRA KOBUS ABSTAINING. 3. Approval of January 21, 2015 Executive Committee meeting minutes. LOU MOSSEY MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ANDREA MORGANTE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Act 250 & Sec. 248 Applications: a. New England Clean Power Link. Regina included a memo in the packet to remind folks what this project is. We sent a letter to the Public Service Board asking them to keep us in the loop. She included what some of the other RPCs are talking about. We haven t put a letter together because there are no transportation issues for Chittenden County. Andrea feels that as a volunteer board we should ask questions. ANR will review water quality. She just wants to be sure folks are aware of the project. Regina noted that other RPCs asked for intervener status at the pre-hearing. She noted that being able to comment vs. intervener is not very different. Discussion ensued about this being another company taking power from Hydro Quebec to the New England grid. VELCO owns the power lines bringing power down to Vermont. This would connect to Ludlow to take up the slack of the loss of Vermont Yankee, which might not be a bad thing. It s a good clean power source. It was suggested we see if it s too late for intervener status. Regina will check. If it s too late for intervener we could join with the other lakeside RPCs so we ll be coordinated. It was noted that for Vermont this is a pass-through as it doesn t begin here or end here. We will craft a letter to ask these questions.

13 CCRPC Executive Committee Page 2 February 4, b. H.W. Ventures, LLC and Georgia Mountain Maples, LLC, Milton; Application #4C This is an existing building that was built through agriculture exemption and they would now like to use it as a banquet facility. It s going to Act 250 because of the change of use and the size of the property. The town has approved it with many conditions. Regina noted that with a banquet facility, all the trips would be off peak. It ll be interesting to see what Act 250 does with 9(L), but since it s existing her opinion is that 9(L) will not prevent them from getting a permit. Lou noted that the adjacent property is in the land trust and will not be further developed. The sewage disposal will be on-site. LOU MOSSEY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LETTER TO THE D.E.C. DEBRA KOBUS SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c. Southview Estates, Richmond; Application #4C0558-5A. Regina noted this is a partial review for the creation of two-lot subdivision, construction of one single-family residence, an accessory building, shared driveway and onsite water & sewer on Lot 1 (four acres) and leave the remaining acres of preserved land on Lot 2. This hasn t been reviewed by the town for approval yet. This is a rural planning area, but Regina found this to be an appropriate use in the rural planning area. LOU MOSSEY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LETTER TO THE D.E.C. DEBRA KOBUS SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. d. The University of Vermont Medical Center Expansion, Burlington; Application #4C Regina noted this letter was already submitted after members reviewed it electronically, but she asked for formal action. DEBRA KOBUS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LOU MOSSEY, TO APPROVE THE LETTER TO THE D.E.C. MOTION CARRIED WITH CHRIS ROY ABSTAINING. 5. Agenda Review February 18, 2015 Board Meeting. Members discussed the proposed agenda for February. Since there is only one action item to warn a public hearing for a major TIP amendment - members asked that we check with Christine and VTrans to see if this item could wait. If not Andy proposed a brief meeting which members could attend by teleconference. If this item can wait, we ll cancel the February meeting. 6. FY15 Mid-Year Adjustment technical correction. Bernie Ferenc noted that the board approved the Mid-Year adjustment at the January meeting. However, when submitting documents to VTrans for a contract amendment, she discovered an error in a couple of formulas that showed revenue $600 less than expenditures. She has made the correction and sent it to VTrans, but wanted EC approval for this technical correction. ANDREA MORGANTE MADE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THAT A $600 DIFFERENCE WAS DETECTED ON THE MID- YEAR ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVE THE TECHNICAL CORRECTION THAT WAS MADE AND PASSED ON TO VTRANS. CHRIS ROY SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. FY16 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) & BUDGET PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. Charlie noted that staff has taken a first cut at a budget for FY16. The biggest assumption is that we hire a transportation program manager and two junior staff. This year we had too much work programmed and not enough billable hours. We have two big grants for FY16 the Real Time Traffic, which is a three-year $1.2 million grant; and the FEMA All Hazard Grant which

14 CCRPC Executive Committee Page 3 February 4, would be another person worth of work. He s being cautious before actually hiring additional staff. We re estimating an increase in health insurance. We are still in an indirect rate penalty year (3% lower than our actual costs), so this is pushing our budget in a negative direction. Once we actually allocate staff hours, we ll have a better idea. We ll be coming back in April with a real budget. Discussion continued about federal funding. Andy asked staff to give board members the list of proposed projects for the FY16 UPWP. Charlie noted that Bryan will be posting this on the website. 8. Chair/Executive Director s Report. a. Legislature. 1. Charlie noted that last week the RPCs were asked to testify about economic development and our role in it. He testified in House Commerce about how planning and economic development go hand in hand. 2. The big issue for us is the Water Quality Bills H.35 & S.49 which both have significant roles for RPCs in basin planning assistance and assistance to our towns. Right now discussion is around Lake Champlain Basin, and they re trying to put a fee on non-residential parcels. One argument is that if this is for stormwater, all property owners ought to contribute to the cost. They are trying to codify the RPC role in working with ANR to assist towns and involving them in basin plans. Charlie noted that if towns are already collecting fees from property owners, they should be given credit for that. This idea is not yet in the bill. 3. On Monday Charlie is going to be in discussions with Vermont Planners Association (VPA) for municipal plan renewal to be 10 years instead of five. The planners think it s a good idea because then you could actually implement things in the plan. Andrea asked if there is any discussion about RPCs approving zoning regulations. Charlie noted if they got to ten years, then they could be required to update zoning. Discussion continued. Chris Roy feels that part of the town plan approval process could be to have the towns identify what activities are needed to implement the plan and report their progress on implementation. 4. Charlie noted that 9(L) has received testimony but we re not sure it s going anywhere. Chris feels it should be better defined between commercial and industrial parks. b. Compensation Study Update. Charlie said we did finally get a draft which staff is reviewing. We re collecting comments through Friday. This report is not as helpful as the previous study. They talk about different pay grades, but not how they got there. They have differentiated engineers from planners. A discussion ensued about some of the conclusions the consultant gave us. We ll give the consultant a list of questions/concerns. We ll put together a staff recommendation for the salary ranges because the consultants are off the mark. We are on a path to get the Executive Committee personnel policy changes for their March meeting, such as pay ranges and job descriptions for the program managers. We will share the study with the Executive Committee. c. Organization Transition. Charlie reported that after internal interviews, Regina was chosen to be the Planning Program Manager. Members congratulated her. We are working on ads for the Transportation Planning Manager and a junior staff position to see what we get so we can hire one or two people. Charlie noted that Michele had been a check signer, so now there is only one internal signer, although signers include

15 CCRPC Executive Committee Page 4 February 4, the three officers. He asked members to think about whether we should add another internal signer. d. Board Development Committee. Debra noted that her term is up in June so we ll need a new treasurer. In March we ll charge the Board Development Committee to come up with a slate of officers for FY Other Business. There was no other business. 10. Executive Session. ANDREA MORGANTE MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS AT 7:15 P.M. LOU MOSSEY SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANDREA MORGANTE MADE A MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:42 P.M. LOU MOSSEY SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANDREA MORGANTE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 7:42 P.M. CHRIS ROY SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Bernadette Ferenc

16 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT January 15, 2015 Peter Keibel District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT RE: The University of Vermont Medical Center (formerly known as the FAHC) Expansion; Burlington; Application #4C Dear Mr. Keibel: The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission s Staff and Executive Committee have reviewed this Act 250 application for a Project generally described as the construction of a 208,000 sf seven-story inpatient building with a total of 128 inpatient replacement beds with relocated driveway, sidewalks and parking areas. The Project replaces beds in Shepardson 3North and Shepardson 4North and will result in no new office or clinical programs and includes a 1.02 acres boundary line adjustment with the University of Vermont. The Project is located on 111 Colchester Avenue in Burlington, Vermont. The project has received approval from the City of Burlington s Development Review Board. We offer the following comments: The project is located within the Center Planning Area as defined in the Chittenden County Regional Plan, entitled the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. We find this project to be consistent with this Planning Area for the following reasons: 1. The Center Planning Area is identified in the Plan as an area planned for growth, and therefore this project helps implement Strategy #2 of the Plan which calls for 80% of new development in the areas planned for growth. 2. The project is proposed to be served by municipal water and sewer, and is served by CCTA transit service with direct stops at the hospital. 3. The density and uses are consistent with the local regulations. Therefore, we find this project to be in conformance with the Planning Areas of the 2013 Chittenden County Regional Plan. Regarding transportation, the proposal does not result in any increases in the number of inpatient beds or parking spaces at the hospital and therefore no net increase in vehicle traffic is expected. The Traffic Assessment also finds existing traffic conditions at key entry points to the main FAHC campus are within acceptable norms during peak conditions. The hospital is a member of CATMA and employs a number of Transportation Demand Management Strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle employee traffic. Therefore, CCRPC does not have any transportation concerns. Due to the detailed level of development review in most Chittenden County municipalities and the environmental permit reviews at the Department of Environmental Conservation, CCRPC will give specific attention in its Act 250 reviews to the type of use and the Planning Areas section of the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. While there are many other topics covered in the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan, there has been significant analysis at the Regional level regarding transportation impacts. The CCRPC will also focus its attention on transportation, where appropriate, in accordance with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is within the 2013 Chittenden County Page 1 of 2 CCRPC_#4C

17 ECOS Plan. These comments are based on information currently available; we may have additional comments as the process continues. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Charlie Baker Executive Director Cc: CCRPC Board Certificate of Service Page 2 of 2 CCRPC_#4C

18 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT January 26, 2015 Stephanie Monaghan District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT RE: Southview Estates, Richmond; Application #4C0558-5A Dear Ms. Monaghan: The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission s Staff and Executive Committee have reviewed this Act 250 application for a Project described as partial review for the creation of a two lot subdivision; construction of one single-family residence, an accessory dwelling, shared driveway and onsite water and sewer on Lot 1; and acres of preserved land on Lot 2. The Project is located on Southview Drive in Richmond, VT. The Criteria under review are: 1-Air, 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1G, 5, 6, 8, 8A, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9G, 9H, 9J and 9K. The project does not have local approval (and has not asked for it yet). We offer the following comments: The project is located within the Rural Planning Area as defined in the Chittenden County Regional Plan, entitled the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. While the Rural Planning Area is not one of the areas planned for growth we find this two lot subdivision, with one single family house and one detached accessory dwelling on 4.02 acres, and acres preserved to be a suitable level of growth within the Rural Planning Area. In addition, the density and uses are consistent with the local regulations. Therefore, we find this project to be in conformance with the Planning Areas of the 2013 Chittenden County Regional Plan. Due to the detailed level of development review in most Chittenden County municipalities and the environmental permit reviews at the Department of Environmental Conservation, CCRPC will give specific attention in its Act 250 reviews to the type of use and the Planning Areas section of the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. While there are many other topics covered in the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan, there has been significant analysis at the Regional level regarding transportation impacts. The CCRPC will also focus its attention on transportation, where appropriate, in accordance with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is within the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. These comments are based on information currently available; we may have additional comments as the process continues. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Charlie Baker Executive Director Cc: CCRPC Board Certificate of Service Page 1 of 1 CCRPC_4C0558-5A

19 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, Vermont MEMORANDUM TO: Executive Committee Members FROM: Regina Mahony, Senior Planner DATE: January 28, 2015 RE: New England Clean Power Link Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission received the prehearing notice for the petition of Champlain VT, LLC d/b/a TDI New England, for a certificate of public good authorizing the installation and operation of a high voltage direct current (HVDC) underwater and underground electric transmission line with a capacity of 1,000 MW, a converter station, and other associated facilities, to be located in Lake Champlain in the Counties of Grand Isle, Chittenden, Addison, and Windsor. This project is known as the New England Clean Power Link Project. If you recall, we received a presentation on this project at the October 15, 2015 CCRPC Board meeting. The Public Service Board s prehearing conference took place on January 28, We requested, and the Clerk agreed, to list CCRPC on the interested persons list so we can be kept informed. At this point, we ll need to decide whether to submit comments. As this project falls out of the realm of the usual issues we would review, I wanted to provide you with information on what issues/questions the other RPC s have raised and have a discussion at your meeting to decide whether we should send the PSB comments or not. The other RPC s have raised the following questions: Addison County RPC: They have requested intervenor status and they will likely focus their questions/comments on financial benefits for the Region - primarily any tax benefits to the municipalities along the lake. Northwest RPC: They have requested intervenor status and will raise questions regarding water quality, geomagnetic fields and combined impacts with the cable on the New York side, impact on Colchester reef, and impact on the capacity of the transmission grid. Please see the attached memo. Southern Windsor County RPC: They have requested intervenor status. I don t yet know what issues they will raise.

20 Grand Isle Highgate Isle La Motte Montgomery North Hero Richford St. Albans C St. Albans T Sheldon South Hero Swanton T Swanton V 75 Fairfield Street St. Albans, VT (802) (800) Fax (802) MEMORANDUM To: Policy/Project Review Committee From: NRPC Staff Date: January 8, 2015 Subject: TDI New England Section 248 This memo concerns the application of TDI New England for a Certificate of Public Good pursuant 30 V.S.A 248 for the installation and operation of a high voltage direct current (HVDC) underwater and underground electric transmission line, a converter station, and other associated facilities. Project Summary The proposed transmission line will have a capacity of 1,000 MW and is proposed to be located on land within Alburgh and underwater in Lake Champlain within the town boundaries of Alburgh, Isle La Motte, North Hero, Grand Isle, and South Hero. The proposed transmission line will then continue underwater via Chittenden, Addison, and Rutland Counties before continuing its route underground to Ludlow, Vermont in Windsor County. In Ludlow, the direct current will be converted from DC to AC power at a proposed converter station and then transferred to the New England electric grid. While on land the proposed transmission line will be buried approximately 4 feet to 5 feet deep. When entering and exiting the lake, the cable will installed using directional boring. Underwater, the proposed transmission line will be installed using various methods. Generally, in water less than 150 feet deep, the proposed transmission line will be buried between 3 to 4 feet deep under the lake bed using a variety of methods including hand trenching by divers, jet plow trenching (the method used for most of the cable s installation in the region), and using a sheer plow. Concrete mattresses will be installed between the proposed transmission line and the lake surface at any points when the cable needs to be located on the lake floor at depth of less than 150 feet such as when the cable is crossing bedrock or when crossing existing infrastructure in the lake). At depths of greater than 150 feet, the proposed transmission line will be laid directly on the lake floor. The cables will be stacked vertically in plow trenches and strapped together horizontally for bottom laid burial according to the applicant s testimony. The following outlines major issues pertaining to the project that were brought up during the Policy/Project Review Committee during its initial review of the project during the 45-day notice period in October 2014: Water Quality The applicant model effects upon water quality and report results in the Lake Champlain Water Quality Modeling Report included in the application. The report modeled the effects on water quality during installation at 5 locations in the lake (2 in shallow water less than 20 feet deep, 3 at 60 feet-200 feet). The model looked at a few different water quality measures: total suspended solids (TSS), particulate phosphorus (PP), dissolved phosphorus (DP) and eight metals. The model assumed that a jet-plow was Serving the municipalities of: Alburg T Alburg V Bakersfield Berkshire Enosburg Falls Enosburg T Fairfax Fairfield Fletcher Franklin Georgia

21 used to install the proposed transmission line at all locations, even those at a depth greater than 150 feet. The modeling report notes that total phosphorus concentration increases reach a temporary peak concentration at the point of installation and then decrease rapidly. Total Phosphorus and Diluted Phosphorus levels will be back to near pre-installation levels (.01 mg/l above baseline) within one to four hours after installation. Total Suspended Solids will also reach near pre-installation levels within one to hours after installation. The report notes that the total mass of phosphorus resuspended in the lake during installation equals about.01% of the annual total external phosphorus input to Lake Champlain. According to the report, installation of the cable will not exceed the maximum daily load and the Vermont Water Quality Standards for the eight metals that were tested (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, silver, and mercury). Another report focused on thermal effects of the proposed transmission line on Lake Champlain notes that the cables will create an infinitesimal thermal contribution. Staff has the following questions pertaining to water quality: 1. Will there be any testing of TSS, TP, or other water quality measurements during installation? If yes, who will be providing the testing? Will ANR and the PSB have access to such testing results? Or is ANR just reliant on the water quality model? What is the next step if phosphorus and metals levels exceed the model? 2. Will the installation of the proposed transmission line have an effect upon the TMDL? Or more precisely, will the installation of the transmission line be accounted for when other agencies are accessing the success of the TMDL? Geomagnetic Fields According to the applicant s geomagnetic studies, the effect of the NECPL cables on the ambient geomagnetic field will be limited largely to the area immediately surrounding the NECPL cables. Within the lake this will mean that the calculated magnetic field deviations at 10 feet from the cables are less than 10% of the ambient geomagnetic field level. Only slightly further away, at 25 feet from the cables, the magnetic field deviation is approximately 1% of the ambient geomagnetic field level. The report continues by stating that the magnetic field level anywhere along the submarine portion of the route will be well below public exposure limits and well below the standards for medical devices. The report does note that boaters who may be using traditional compasses that rely on the earth s magnetic field may detect a small effect on compass readings above the buried cables in shallow water. The report continues by providing the following examples: In water depths of just 10 feet, the maximum compass deviation would be 8 degrees directly over the cable and would decrease to 1.3 degrees at a distance of 10 feet or more from the cable centerline. The compass deviation also decreases as the depth of water over the cable increases, and will be less than 2.9 degrees directly over the cable at depths greater than 19 feet. Where the cables are not buried at depths > 150 feet, the deviation at the lake surface would be less than one degree. Compass readings and locations obtained from global positioning system receivers would not be affected by the NECPL cables. 2

22 Regarding the effects of the geomagnetic field s effect on the wildlife, the report notes that a review of neurobiological research to date did not indicate that the change in the geomagnetic field around the cable would cause adverse impacts on resident populations of aquatic species. The report notes that some species, like sturgeon, maybe able to detect the changed in the magnetic fields when near the cables, but finds that probability of resident aquatic species encountering areas with significantly altered magnetic fields associated with the buried cable is very low. Staff has the following questions regarding geomagnetic fields: 1. How close will this cable be to the cable on the New York side of Lake Champlain? Have cumulative impacts been looked at all? Especially in terms of electromagnetic fields? Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species The application notes that six threatened and three endangered plant species were identified in the study area. All areas that contain such species were avoided by the transmission line s currently proposed route. Archeological Resources in Lake Champlain An archeological report was submitted with the application. The applicant contracted with the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum to assess impacts to historical resources in Lake Champlain. Per the report, most resources will be avoided. Three cross-lake resources will be impacted by the proposed transmission line. Two are railroad trestles (including Rouses Point) that can be documented in their current state and examined post installation to ensure that installation caused no impact upon the trestles. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum recommends that a third resource, the Revolutionary War Great Bridge, be documented and removed within the transmission line s selected corridor. Source Protection The report notes that the proposed transmission line will pass through the source protection area of the Grand Isle Consolidated Water District s source protection area for both of its intakes. The deep intake may be effected by turbidity caused by the transmission line installation due to their close proximity. However, the Water District has indicated to the applicant s consultant that it could exclusively use the shallow intake during the transmission line s installation to prevent any effects upon the public water supply. Other Questions/Requests 1. Water depths should be provided on the maps for the area of the lake north of US Route 2 near Alburgh. 2. Is there any concern about laying the transmission line on the lake floor in the vicinity of Colchester Reef despite depths less than 150 feet? 3. What is the impact on the capacity of the transmission grid? Will future in state generation projects have sufficient capacity? Conclusion For Board members seeking additional information regarding this application, all resources are available here: The executive summaries in each report are especially useful in trying to digest such a large amount of information. Other reports that may be 3

23 of interest to the board involve the proposed transmission line s impact upon the economy, regional energy needs, greenhouse gasses emissions, invasive species, and a visual analysis, amongst several other topics. At the Committee s meeting on January 14, 2015, it will need to determine whether or not Northwest Regional Planning Commission should apply for intervener status in the Public Service Board process. Staff advises that the Committee seek intervener status regardless of whether or not the Committee has significant questions at this time. By seeking intervener status, NRPC will reserve the ability to intervene at a later date if the Committee has questions or concerns about the project, but the Commission is no obligated to participate. 4

24 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT February 5, 2015 Peter Keibel District #4 Coordinator 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT RE: H.W. Ventures, LLC and Georgia Mtn. Maples, LLC, Milton; Application #4C Dear Mr. Keibel: The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission s Staff and Executive Committee have reviewed this Act 250 application for a project generally described as the utilization of an existing maple sugaring building as an 80-seat banquet hall. The Project is located on 345 North Road, in Milton, VT. The project has Conditional Use and Site Plan approval from the Milton Development Review Board (with conditions). We offer the following comments: The project is located within the Rural Planning Area as defined in the Chittenden County Regional Plan, entitled the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. While the Rural Planning Area is not one of the areas planned for growth we find this additional use within an existing building to be suitable within the Rural Planning Area. Regarding the density and uses are consistent with the local regulations. Therefore, we find this project to be in conformance with the Planning Areas of the 2013 Chittenden County Regional Plan. We also find that this project meets the requirements of Criterion 9(L). We find that this area does not meet the exact definition of existing settlement. Therefore, under Criterion 9(L), the applicant must show that any project outside an existing settlement: i. Makes efficient use of land, energy, roads, utilities and other infrastructure, and either: ii. (I) Will not contribute to strip development, or (II) If the project is confined to existing strip development, it incorporates infill and minimizes the characteristics of strip development. Because this particular project is adding a use in an already existing building we find that this proposed project is making efficient use of land, energy, roads, utilities and other infrastructure. Secondarily, we find that this proposed project will not contribute to strip development as it is already developed. Due to the detailed level of development review in most Chittenden County municipalities and the environmental permit reviews at the Department of Environmental Conservation, CCRPC will give specific attention in its Act 250 reviews to the type of use and the Planning Areas section of the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. While there are many other topics covered in the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan, there has been significant analysis at the Regional level regarding transportation impacts. The CCRPC will also focus its attention on transportation, where appropriate, in accordance with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is within the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan. These comments are based on information currently available; we may have additional comments as the process continues. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Charlie Baker Executive Director Cc: CCRPC Board Certificate of Service Page 1 of 1 CCRPC_4C1163-2

25 CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: CCRPC Office, 110 West Canal St. Winooski, VT Members Present Bryan Osborne, Chair, Colchester Nicole Losch, Burlington Dennis Lutz, Essex Bruce Hoar, Williston Justin Rabidoux, South Burlington Dean Pierce, Shelburne Matt Langham, VTrans Chris Jolly, FHWA Charlene Wallace, Bike/Pedestrian Sandy Thibault, CATMA Bob Henneberger, Seniors Meredith Birkett, CCTA Brian Bigelow, Underhill Roger Hunt, Milton Bryan Osborne convened the meeting at 9:05AM. 1. Consent Agenda There was no consent agenda this month. 2. Approval of Minutes A MOTION WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2015 BY DENNIS LUTZ AND SECONDED BY BOB HENNEBERGER. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Public Comments No members of the public were present. Staff Peter Keating, Senior Transportation Planner Eleni Churchill, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Chris Dubin, Transportation Planner Christine Forde, Senior Transportation Planner Jason Charest, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Pam Brangan, Senior Planner Bryan Davis, Senior Transportation Planner Charlie Baker, Executive Director Marshall Distil, Transportation Intern 4. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments Christine explained that two of the four amendments under consideration were defined as major due to the level of cost increase or the addition of a new project and therefore required a public hearing. Since the two minor changes were the result of the major amendments, we ve rolled them all together for TAC action. The precise changes (what s new/getting more funds/getting less/changing years) are identified in the table below. Summary of Proposed TIP Change FY15 Federal FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 March 2015 Funds Federal Funds Federal Fund Federal Fund Federal Funds Essex Junction Paving New Project +$280,000 +4,200,000 Williston Park and Ride +$1,328,000 Champlain Parkway PE and ROW -$540,000 Champlain Parkway Construction -$6,120,000 +$6,120,000 VT117 Paving, Essex-Richmond -$2,460,000 +$2,460,000 Christine further explained that as costs increased for some projects it needed to decrease elsewhere to stay within the overall TIP fiscal constraint. One way to do that was to move some Champlain Parkway construction funds out past the TIP s final year, to FY19 as that project s construction will be funded over a

26 Transportation Advisory Committee 2 February 3, few years. She also explained that in the development of the next TIP, starting in FY16, Champlain Parkway funding would be reevaluated. Following Christine s explanation of the proposed changes, discussion items included concerns that 1) moving projects out to FY19 would move others projects out from that year, 2) VTrans roadway projects competing with sidewalk funding, and 3) the relatively high cost of VTrans paving on a per mile basis compared to local governments costs for similar projects. Following discussion, Bryan Osborne divided the action into two one to recommend approval of the first two items: Adding the Williston Park and Ride and Essex Junction Paving. BRIAN BIGELOW MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE ITEMS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JUSTIN RABIDOUX AND PASSED UNAMIMOUSLY. A second motion was made to approve the other items: Champlain Parkway changes and VT 117 Paving BYJUSTIN RABIDOUX AND SECONDED BY DENNIS LUTZ AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Important Local Road Priorities Pam Brangan explained the purpose of this is to identify town road importance within each town. This applies only to local roads and not state highways. This criteria (relative importance), along with bankfull width criteria will be used to develop a prioritization tool for vtculverts. This new tool will be available soon to assist towns in your structure replacement prioritization. The information will not be utilized by VTrans for any other purpose, only to inform the prioritization tool in vtculverts. Pam displayed an on-line map and reported that CCRPC staff made a first attempt and had ranked the town roads using the criteria listed on the details tab of the map (AADT, road functional classification, road class, e911 building points) these are the same criteria all RPCs are using to help set local road importance. Pam said that now we d like the Towns to review our staff rankings. Pam gave a quick map tutorial beginning by zooming from the whole County to a smaller area. She demonstrated how one can turn on AADT points and/or e911 structures by clicking on the layers button. To change a roads importance click on the edit button then click on the road and change the importance (3 = High importance, 2 = Medium importance, 1 = Low importance). By clicking somewhere else in the map, the color of the road will change to the importance ranking change. The deadline is short we need this by 2/11 and while we recognize it is a short time frame to provide edits, if towns are unable to do it, we can make changes later. But staff would appreciate if Towns could at least give the map a quick look before the deadline. 6. FY16 CCRPC Sidewalk Grant Program Peter referenced discussion from last year when award recommendations were made to the Board. At that time we approved four partial awards for projects and there was some concern about how this perhaps was not desirable from some awardees perspective. Peter referred to the attached memo and table on the history of sidewalk program awards for more background information. He noted that over the past four grant rounds half of all awards given were partial awards. While recommending partial awards works well when the review committee has a difficult time selecting from what they feel are equally worthy projects, we ve also heard that partial awards to some towns can make for more difficult project budgeting and administration. To address this trend and municipal concerns, staff sought TAC input on a couple of possible application changes: 1. Stop recommending any partial awards (this was the pattern/practice over most of the first six program years). We would then state up front in the application that no partial awards would be made. 2. Ask explicitly in the application if the applicant is willing to accept a partial award, for how much, and how that lesser award fits within the overall project budget.

27 Transportation Advisory Committee 3 February 3, Considerable discussion followed and included the following comments: Partial awards are not in themselves undesirable but awards of federal funds for low amounts can be problematic with all the strings that come attached with the money Identify on the application form all other funding sources for the project and the timing of when those funds would be expected Consider giving priority in a following year to an application that had received a partial award the year before Consider how VTrans in its Bike/Ped and Transportation Alternatives applications asks about and deals with partial awards Consider having just yes and no boxes to check on the application for partial awards Consider the program s goals/what are we trying to achieve with this program Peter will take these comments under consideration and propose a revision to the application and get it out to TAC members soon well before the mailing for the March meeting. 7. VTrans Right-of-Way (ROW) Workshop Bryan Davis reminded TAC members about this upcoming workshop that we had ed members on earlier. The CCRPC and VTrans are co-hosting this training on February 11 from 1-4:30 p.m. This free event is of particular interest for municipalities who implement Local Transportation Facilities (LTF) projects through VTrans. We would like to hear from Towns what their specific areas of interest/need and will build an agenda based on responses. A similar training was held in Status of Projects and Subcommittee Reports Peter referred members to the list of projects on the back of the agenda. Dennis Lutz asked about having a sheet with all transportation funding sources on the CCRPC s homepage (staff responded that we would do this). It was also suggested that CIRC Alternatives projects have an update somewhere where towns can check on their status. There was a discussion about prioritizing CIRC Alternatives Phase 3 projects as these have yet to go through that process. There was also discussion about fee increases coming from the Agency of Natural Resources related to stormwater, how these would impact municipal budgets and potentially lead to some backlash especially given the investments already made by MS4 towns. 9. CCRPC December Board Meeting Report Peter cited a public forum for FY16 UPWP project solicitation, approval of the FY15 UPWP and budget mid-year adjustment, approval a resolution to recognizing Michele Boomhower for her service, and approval of the prioritization of district leveling projects. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter Keating

28 CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 TIME: 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. PLACE: CCRPC Offices, 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202, Winooski, VT Members Present Joss Besse, Bolton Eranthie Yeshwant, Winooski Alex Weinhagen, Hinesburg Paul Conner, South Burlington Ken Belliveau, Williston Melissa Manka, Westford Edmund Booth, Huntington Dana Hanley, Essex Greg Duggan, Essex Sarah McShane, Underhill 1. Welcome and Introductions Joss Besse called the meeting to order at 2:39 p.m. 2. Approval of November 12, 2014 Minutes Staff Regina Mahony, Senior Planner Lee Krohn, Senior Planner Bryan Davis, CCRPC Other Jason Van Driesche, Local Motion Katelin Brewer-Colie, Local Motion Ken Belliveau made a motion, seconded by Alex Weinhagen, to approve the November 12, 2014 minutes, with the addition of Winooski on the Act 250 project list. No further discussion. MOTION PASSED. 3. Model Bike Parking Ordinances to Support Multimodal-Friendly Development Jason Van Driesche & Katelin Brewer-Colie from Local Motion provided an overview of current best practices for bike parking requirements within development ordinances, as well as share a model ordinance under development in collaboration with the City of Burlington. The approach in Burlington is described in the document titled Ideas for Addressing Bicycle Infrastructure Needs as Part of Burlington s Downtown Parking Study attached to these minutes. The approach includes inventorying existing bike parking and setting targets for the desired amount and types of parking; update the city ordinance specifying the type, location and installation in private development; and create and begin a program for adding secure parking to garages. Local Motion also provided the PAC with a more specific memo on issues related to zoning code requirements for bicycle parking (also attached to these minutes). This includes a table of Comparisons of Bike Parking Requirements that identifies specific regulations in Burlington and comparable cities (Cambridge (MA), Corvallis (OR), Missoula (MT)). Local Motion also explained that their CCRPC Work Program contract includes bike parking assistance to municipalities. This is a relatively new area for them and they are learning quite a bit through the Burlington project, but they are willing and able to assist in all of the Chittenden County municipalities. In addition, Katelin explained that Local Motion has about 15 U racks available for purchase at a discounted rate the racks need to be located in publically available locations (this includes parking for a commercial establishment). Other efforts include two pilot installations of secure bike lockers in Burlington and Winooski that can be accessed electronically this approach will get more use out of the lockers rather than individual rental lockers. Discussion followed regarding the required amount of bike parking spaces and how it seemed rather low across the board and it would be interesting to know bike ownership numbers as opposed to just commuter rates as many people bike recreationally and still need to store their bikes. Katelin mentioned that Burlington is considering going to a bike parking space per bedroom model which may be a good approach. Jason described a bike storage room approach that Champlain College has used with wall hangers that provides a lot

29 Planning Advisory Committee 2 January 14, of storage in a small amount of space and minimizes wall damage (as it eliminates the need for residents to lug bikes up to their rooms). Lee Krohn suggested a lead by example approach as an alternative to a regulatory approach as an example there are interesting art installation bike rack projects. Jason, described that the Burlington approach does include more than a regulatory approach, however there is a need to establish regulations as the majority of it won t happen otherwise. Ken described Williston s regulatory approach: bike parking as a percentage of total parking requirements; secure bike parking as a percentage of the total bike parking required; and end of trip facilities. There is a great example of bike storage and end of trip facilities in the new Panera/Verizon building. Local Motion reiterated that this work is part of their CCRPC contract and they encouraged the municipalities to contact them if they are interested; they are also able to give Planning Commission presentations on this topic. They also suggested that the municipalities send interested developers their way for advice and assistance on bike parking. 4. UPWP Regional Projects Joss Besse explained that the UPWP project applications are due on Friday, January 23, 2015 and municipalities are working on their individual applications but this is a good forum to understand if there are any regional or sub-regional projects the CCRPC should consider. Bryan Davis thanked Joss Besse and Ken Belliveau for serving as the PAC reps on the UPWP Committee. CCRPC is currently working on the permit tracking software white paper; and Regina explained that Colchester has started the application process for FEMA s Community Rating System one of the other topics mentioned last year. Joss asked if there are any other sub-regional or region wide UPWP projects that CCRPC should be considering for FY16? Alex explained that there don t appear to be any avenues for these ideas to develop as the municipalities rarely talk to each other in this way. He suggested that CCRPC is in a good position to facilitate multi-town discussions not just at the PAC meeting but specifically going out to coffee to bring some folks together could be project oriented, infrastructure specific, or more general without a specific agenda. Lee described the Shared Services Survey that was recently sent to Town Managers and SLB Chairs. The survey is intended to find out if there are any needs or desires for shared or sub-regional approaches to municipal services. The results of the survey may likely inspire some of those conversations to take place. Paul suggested a Zoning Administrator s annual or semi-annual training, especially in light of the turnover that we see in these positions. Regina explained the DRB Summit that CCRPC will host in the Spring and if successful may continue to host in the future on a regular basis. It may be possible to do something similar for Zoning Administrators. 5. Huntington 2014 Comprehensive Plan Note: This agenda item was discussed earlier than described on the agenda to accommodate Everett Marshall s attendance at the meeting. Public hearing opened (3:35pm). No one from the public was in attendance. Public Hearing closed. Regina Mahony provided an overview of the process and why this final Plan came back to the PAC, and described the potential issue with the Village Designation map. Everett Marshall, Huntington Planning Commission Chair, explained the nature of the changes to the Plan at the Selectboard level largely language edits that don t change the effect of the Plan. Paul asked about implementation of the Village districts and whether Huntington is still considering the use of FBC in those districts. Everett explained that they d like to make the districts more flexible and may use some components of the FBC if not the whole draft. Melissa Manka made a motion, seconded by Alex Weinhagen, that the PAC finds that the final 2014 Huntington Town Plan, as submitted, meets all statutory requirements for CCRPC approval, and that the municipality's planning process meets all statutory requirements for CCRPC confirmation. The PAC recommends that the Plan, and the municipal planning process, should be forwarded to the CCRPC Board for approval. No further discussion. MOTION PASSED. Edmund Booth abstained.

30 Planning Advisory Committee 3 January 14, Westford 2015 Town Plan Review (no public hearing) Joss Besse explained that there is no public hearing associated with this review as it was too late to warn one, however the required public hearing will be held at the next stage of review on this Plan (either PAC meeting or Board meeting). Regina Mahony gave a brief overview of the staff report. Joss asked if the PAC had any comments or questions. Paul thought that the steep slopes table (pg. 60) seemed out of line with the steep slopes on Map 3; suggested there was a typo in a column heading on the implementation table; and suggested that the CCRPC housing targets are out of date. Regina explained that she also mentioned the housing targets in her comments and suggested some amendment language if the Westford PC wants to keep those in their Plan. Joss asked how small scale commercial is defined. Melissa stated that it is currently 4,000 sq.ft.; however, there are considering amending that. They won t allow retail, customer oriented businesses (the Town Core is planned for those uses), and may go to a max of 22,000 sq.ft. total lot coverage (including parking and all improvements on the site). Joss is concerned about strip developments along these roads and it hasn t happened in large part as a result of poor soils. He stated that 4,000 sq.ft. is more comfortable than 22,000 sq.ft. Melissa explained that the PC has also identified context sensitive design standards for this district (intentionally not calling it FBC in this area). Joss concluded by indicating that this seems like an okay approach. Alex indicated that he won t be voting on this Plan at the PAC as he will be voting on it as a Westford Selectboard member. However, he had some broad recommendations that he makes on all of the Plans that seem relevant in this case as well: implementation list is good, but way too long & needs a top ten list; and the objectives in each chapter are good but seem very broad. Melissa responded to Regina s staff comments: most of the comments will be addressed in the Plan. Melissa specifically mentioned that there are a few FEH areas not covered by the existing regulations and so there may be an addition or an expansion of the WRO overlay to capture these not necessarily a brand new overlay; and the FBC standards should be implemented rather than developed as that is already done. Melissa further explained that the implementation spreadsheet was done specifically to allow for sorting of tasks so they could easily identify specific tasks associated with particular Committees. Ken Belliveau made a motion, seconded by Edmund Booth, that the PAC finds that the draft 2015 Westford Town Plan, as submitted, meets all statutory requirements for CCRPC approval, and that the municipality's planning process meets all statutory requirements for CCRPC confirmation. Upon notification that the Plan has been adopted by the municipality, CCRPC staff will review the plan, and any information relevant to the confirmation process, for changes. If staff determines that changes are substantive, those changes will be forwarded to the PAC for review. Otherwise the PAC recommends that the Plan, and the municipal planning process, should be forwarded to the CCRPC Board for approval. The public hearing was not conducted at this PAC meeting, and therefore should be held by whichever body (PAC or CCRPC Board) sees the Plan next in this review process. No further discussion. MOTION PASSED. Alex Weinhagen and Melissa Manka abstained. 7. Regional Act 250/Section 248 Projects in the Horizon Winooski Potential Act 250 appeal from the developer of the 277 East Allen project regarding the traffic light condition. Essex As a result of Act 250 changes the Town is likely to see an amendment to the Freeman Woods project. There is a multi-use project in Essex Town Center - 54 unit residential on Commonwealth Ave and a commercial bldg. on the Commonwealth Ave/Route 15 corner. Hoping they will break up the massing of the commercial building the developer seems to be receptive thus far. Huntington nothing new So. Burlington 24 housing units in 3 bldgs on Hineburg Road (west side of Kennedy) putting in front of a parking lot to make the area more pedestrian friendly. Paul also mentioned the New England Clean Power Link power transmission line in proposed to be installed in Lake Champlain. Bolton nothing new

31 Planning Advisory Committee 4 January 14, Westford the DRB approval of a microfilament recycling and tanker truck testing proposal on Route 128 (north of the common) was just upheld by the courts will likely go to Act 250 now. Also an existing business (for decades) never got Act 250 approval and septic system failed they now have to go to Act 250 to get approval. Williston the Park & Ride at Exit 12 application has now been submitted to Act 250. It raises an interesting question in light of Act 145 the project will generate 95 trips (regional trip reduction, local trip generation), should VTrans have to pay Williston s transportation impact fee? Hinesburg nothing new 6. Other Business a. DRB Summit Regina explained that this idea came from the Milton DRB. Interest from about 25 DRB members has been expressed and most of the municipalities are represented. CCRPC will host this event on a weekday evening in the Spring. Stay tuned for more information. b. Census Data Workshop CCRPC will host this on Friday, 1/23 from 1pm to 4pm. The first hour will include a presentation on the new online format for the ECOS Annual Report. Melanie will more information so stay tuned for that. c. Paul reported that So. Burlington is conducting a large education facilities planning project and with that a demographic study. The study shows a decline in school enrollment as well as a population decline. Population will go up until 2020, but then drop after that due to death rates. While the study is So. Burlington specific it is likely relevant to the entire region. While the school enrollment numbers are not surprising the general population numbers are. The study also indicates that there will soon be very few buyers of large single family homes. d. Dana reported that she and Greg attended the VT Economic Outlook Conference last week. The VT short term outlook is good, however the long-term outlook is bad based on the aging population. A presentation from the Brookings Institute was fascinating it described a happiness U-shaped curve, indicating that happiness decreases in middle-age and increases as you get older (mid-50s and older). 7. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next meeting will take place on March 11, 2015 from 2:30pm to 4:30pm. Respectfully submitted, Regina Mahony

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42