MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Dick Elkins, Claude LaPierre, J.D. Landry, Kay Kraushaar. (Anna Rosenblum Palmer was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator; Dean Pierce, Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            David Babbott, Phil & Vicki Carleton, Jerry Barton, Krister Adams, Doug Moses, Martin Gold, Mark Sperry, Monica Varsakopoulos, Vasilis Varsakopoulos, David McFeeters, Alex Varsakopoulos, Mary Lou Mannix, Robin Milne, John Milne, Louise Ransom, Gerald Hornung, Nancy Bradley, Abigail Miller, Robert Ryder, Sen. Diane Snelling, Jini Hornung, Ellie Skolfield, Don Hornstein, Joan Lenes, Ellen Reid, Elizabeth Miles, Josie Palmer Leavitt, David Mitchell, Patricia Fontaine, Jeff Zweber, Kate Webb, Gwen Webster, Morris Pike, Peter Zuk, Craig Smith, Maria Horn, Steve Feldman, Marian Feldman, Lois Holbrook, Barbara Beaman, Elizabeth McCarthy, Ann Weathers, Sharon Barton, Sally Conrad, David Conrad, Ruth Painter, Alice Cook Bassett, Meredith Babbott, Keith Olson, Robert Senghas, David Webster, John Giebink, Dave Marshall, Joel Baird (Burlington Free Press), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Telecommunications Facility, “Stealth Pine Tree” Antenna, 4750 Shelburne Road, Verizon Wireless (TF09-02)

·        PRD Amendment, Subdivision Landscaping, Irish Hill Road/Spear Street, O’Brien Sugarwoods, LLC (SUB06-04R1)

·        Conditional Use, Retaining Wall, 291 Ordway Shore Road, Patricia Fontaine (CU09-20)

·        Preliminary Plan, Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road/82 Shelburnewood Drive/5167 Shelburne Road, Shelburnewood, LLC (SUB08-03)

·        Final Plan, Land Transfer and PUD Approval, 145 Pine Haven Shores Road & 2522 Shelburne Road, Bluewater Realty, LLC (SUB09-04)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Per the memo from John Adams, dated 12/29/09, Brian Sullivan on behalf of Verizon Wireless requested continuance of the hearing until 2/3/10.

 

 

Josie Palmer Leavitt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Palmer Leavitt stated Lot 14 in the subdivision located off Spear Street Extension is not impacted by the development’s infrastructure. The existing house on Lot 14 will be demolished to meet PRD setbacks. The amendment request is that certificates of occupancy not be tied to the landscaping requirement for the entire project. There is an interested buyer in the lot, but no action will be taken until the issue is settled. Lot 14 is not tied to the road through the development and has no individual landscaping requirements. Lot 13 is the first lot on the new road (Autumn Hill Lane). The road infrastructure will have to be built to the driveway and landscaping done to that point, but completing the landscaping for the entire development is not necessary.

 

Dick Elkins asked about screening on the east side. Ms. Palmer Leavitt stated the infrastructure is to be completed when the next lot is sold and landscaping will be done during that construction.

 

 Peter Gibbs mentioned phasing the project with the first phase being infrastructure to the 1,000’ mark minus the rock wall. This would address lots 13 and 14. All the other lots in the development need the completed infrastructure.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if the boulder wall is a retaining wall for landscaping. Ms. Palmer Leavitt stated the wall is tiered and landscaping goes around the wall which will provide an extra shield from car headlights. There are existing trees on the site.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/6/10. John Adams confirmed there are no landscaping conditions associated with Lot 14 and the house has already been demolished.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jeff Zweber and David Mitchell with Engineering Ventures appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself and Mark Sammut assumed the duties of chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jeff Zweber stated a site visit was conducted. There will be additional vegetation added to the top of the 70’ long, 11’ high retaining wall (located in front of the existing failing wall). The north end of the south portion of the wall has been shifted two feet to be at the base of the existing wall. Also, the two foot separation between the walls has been eliminated. Property lines are shown on the site plan. The amount of rip-rap has been reduced on the northern face to address concerns of the neighbors. The rip-rap will be 2.5’x 2.5’x 2.5’ though the existing conditions will not be aggravated if rip-rap is not used. The front surface of the wall will be slightly inclined.

 

Dave Mitchell explained the existing stacked concrete block wall is bowing outward because the blocks are not tied into the bank. There is a gap at the top of the stairs. The stairs will be pulled out with the new wall. Building a new concrete wall in front of the existing wall that is failing will cause the least amount of disruption to the slope. The new wall is over designed for reinforcement and will have drainage (crushed stone with filter fabric and pipe out the ends of the wall).  The new wall will be textured using colored concrete which is secured into the ledge. Eight truck loads of concrete will be deposited on the site. The color of the concrete could be changed from truckload to truckload, but the end result would be unpredictable. Topsoil will be added on top of the flow-able fill for plantings. There will be no change to the stairs.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated 12/29/09. Kay Kraushaar asked if the wall sample is compatible with the color of the existing wall. Claude LaPierre who visited the site said the sample is somewhat compatible. The existing wall is the only seawall in the area and as an 11’ high wall it sticks out. Mr. LaPierre suggested terracing the wall if possible. David Mitchell stated it is difficult to terrace a concrete retaining wall. The amount of concrete would have to be increased and the structure would go farther into the lake which would not be acceptable to the Army Corps. of Engineers. Dick Elkins asked about distorting the color to make the wall appear more natural. Mr. Zweber stated the color of the poured concrete will be the color of the wall, but if multiple colors are poured the end result will not be known. Mark Sammut asked about stepping the wall and adding vegetation. Mr. Zweber said the Army Corps. of Engineering permitting does not allow creation of a terrace because the wall is pushed farther into the lake unless the bank is further disturbed. Plantings on top of the wall can be added though.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Marian Feldman, 293 Ordway Shore Road, recalled the retaining wall on the applicant’s property has already been removed and reconstructed once. Rebar was installed. Ms. Feldman asked if the rip-rap on the north side could be eliminated to avoid encroachment on the stairs. Mr. Mitchell stated the rip-rap is there to make the bottom of the wall last longer under wave action. Mr. Zweber observed the rip-rap is better, but the new wall itself may be good enough so the request can be considered. Ms. Feldman asked about the amount of drainage. Mr. Mitchell explained the purpose of the drainage is to avoid having the water accumulate behind the wall and freeze in winter. There will be surface water on the slope after rain events. Ms. Feldman expressed concern about erosion on the beach from the drainage. Mr. Mitchell suggested several diversion points in the wall can be added for drainage.  Mr. Zweber noted the area is not being re-graded and drainage is not being increased. The pipe is located about eight inches above the bottom of the wall. There are some cobbles and stones on the shoreline, but largely the area is bedrock. As the elevation of the lake goes up, the water will be pushed back into the drainage system and then drain back out. Ms. Feldman asked doing a terraced wall. Mr. Mitchell explained a terraced wall would require more cubic feet of soil and significant cutting into the bank. There would be additional labor and cost. The slope would be disrupted as well. Mark Sammut suggested a cast wall for the first six feet and then a segmented wall to break up the mass of concrete. Steve Feldman commented if the wall is shorter the pressure in essence is on the upper block so the top can be less high and there can be soil fill and plantings to mask the blocks. Mr. Zweber and Mr. Mitchell will further investigate options with the wall.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs returned to the DRB and resumed the duties of chairman.

 

John Giebink and Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application. It was noted the Development Review Board received a packet of information including a memo on deferral and waiver requests, the development plans, new layout for Building C, parking counts on the site, building coverage, street widths and building separations, density calculations, plans involving Trinity Church, proposed findings, findings on external traffic, report for Jim Olson on soils and the design of the retaining wall, and memos from the Shelburne Fire Chief and Public Works Dept.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Giebink stated with a mixed use PUD the intent is to cluster development so waivers of side and front yard setbacks are requested. Other waivers are specific to Public Works items. Every detail of the project is covered in the plans and copies of the plans have been submitted. Shelburne’s Fire Chief is comfortable with the plans as submitted. Regarding the new design of Building C, the Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission (SHP&DRC) feels the design is good. Waiver of the final determination of the SHP&DRC is sought until Final Plan review. Regarding the density of the project a 5.5% density bonus is requested which equates to 10 housing units of which eight are affordable housing. The report from Jim Olson supports the design of the retaining wall. All the material needed for deliberations has been submitted (including response to items in the memo from deliberative session, dated 12/31/09), said Mr. Giebink, and the request is that the DRB close the hearing.

 

Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, confirmed an update of the entire submittals has been provided to the DRB to reflect the current status of the project.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated 12/30/09 for the 1/6/10 meeting. Bernie Gagnon, Shelburne Public Works Director, stated the updated drawings have been reviewed and advised the package is adequate for Preliminary Review. For Final Plan review specific items for further review have been identified before being incorporated into the final plans. These items include the water and sewer system. A phasing plan is needed to ensure existing properties on the water line continue to have service through the project construction. The water lines in the area of F Street should remain private and a maintenance agreement signed with town (the homeowners association would be billed for service). Water line profiles have been requested to ensure there are no conflicts with other utility lines. An agreement has been requested on the water line tie-in at the Shelburne Inn because there could be public lines tying into private lines. Modeling of the water for fire flow for the development should be done because there are some pressure shortages in other part of the system. Any discrepancies must be adequately addressed. For the sewer there is gravity flow to a pump station on Route 7. The applicant’s engineer has been asked to do more analysis of the effect on the lift stations and lines to the treatment plant to ensure the lines can handle the additional flow from the development. Mr. Gagnon noted he commented on the requests for waivers for roadway width, right-of-way width, and trees in the right-of-way. Public Works wants a 60’ right-of-way to control plantings and have the ability to maintain water and sewer lines and plow the sidewalks. Mark Sammut asked if the street width and right-of-way width could be correspondingly reduced. Mr. Gagnon agreed this can be considered in specific areas. Street width of 28’ is ideal, but there are certain areas with bulb-outs for crosswalks so a narrower street for traffic calming and increased pedestrian safety could be considered. John Giebink noted A Street is 24’ wide with a five foot wide grass strip and five foot wide sidewalk on both sides. A 50’ right-of-way will handle the road and sidewalk widths proposed and allow plantings and landscaping to the outside. From an aesthetic standpoint, the development is offering a village setting, said Mr. Giebink. Dave Marshall commented on the ‘clash of cultures’ with traditional neighborhood design having boulevard roads and false fronts where people mainly use the backyard space versus the village setting where people spend their time on the front porch facing the street. In a village setting the goal is to slow traffic by narrowing the streets and planting trees to create a walkable, livable environment like what existed in the past. Consultants, such as Julie Campoli, and communities across the country are adopting the village neighborhood design with decreased street widths and landscaping along the road. The plan was revised and developed in great part with Julie Campoli’s contributions, stated Mr. Marshall.

 

Dick Elkins asked if the sewer plan is changed. Dave Marshall explained the gravity line runs parallel to Route 7 in a northerly direction. Mr. Elkins asked about water meters and if sewer and water service will be billed individually. John Giebink stated the utilities are part of the rent as is the heat.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the development layout is based on the requested waivers being granted. John Giebink confirmed this, noting the landscaping being farther back or eliminated will not change the street layout or the housing units. Mr. Gibbs asked about slopes and stabilization, especially at the corner of C Street. Dave Marshall referred to Dr. Olson’s results, noting test borings to a depth of 50’ were done. Progressable soils were found. In the placement of fill to support the C Street curve, light weight backfill will be added behind the wall (this is a viable design for the project). C Street is a private street. Peter Gibbs asked if the elderly housing building and the condominium building meet the building height regulation. John Giebink stated the buildings are 33’ in height.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about deferrals for the periphery buffer. Mr. Giebink noted there is confusion in the terms of the existing zoning regulations where nothing can be in the periphery buffer, but the Harrington House, driveway, parking, and the Toule house are there now.  The Selectboard is reviewing the zoning. John Adams explained a change in the regulations was done for other types of PUDs. The regulations are proposed to be changed for the applicant’s type of PUD as well.

 

It was noted waivers requested for Preliminary Plan include front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, lot frontage minimum, intersection, water meter, road width, and right-of-way width. Street trees and radii of turns can be handled at Final Plan. John Adams advised waivers can be included in the written decision. The DRB should focus deliberations on the deferrals requested.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Vicki Carleton, Shelburnewood, announced in three more weeks the residents of Shelburnewood will be facing five years of park closure. Ms. Carleton said the residents like the neighborhood and want to remain there. The DRB is urged to move forward with approvals so the project can move to the next step.

 

Krister Adams, HFI, thanked the DRB for all the hard work and urged moving the project forward very soon for state and local funding issues. Regarding the waivers, in terms of traditional neighborhood design HFI applauds any development with narrow street widths that work for Public Works and a village setting that will help the town and the Design Review Commission achieve its goals in the long run.

 

 

The public hearing was recessed and Deliberative Session convened at 9:10 p.m.

 

 

The regular meeting reconvened at 9:33 p.m. Peter Gibbs summarized the motion to accept the deferrals. Waivers will be handled as part of a written decision in the Preliminary Plan approval process. Regarding final recommendations from SHP&DRC on the buildings, to grant the density bonus approval from SHP&DRC is needed. A decision from SHP&DRC is anticipated at Final Plan review. Risks to the applicant include an unfavorable decision from SHP&DRC and possible changes to the plan or requirement of off site improvements relative to water and sewer which may have a financial impact on the project.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

·        Final SHP&DRC recommendations on buildings

·        Signage details

·        Legal documents for easements, affordability covenants, and land dedication to the town

·        Final construction drawings for utilities, drainage, roadways, erosion control, landscaping, and such

·        Final street names

·        Periphery buffer

 

Martin Gold with Bluewater Realty, Mark Sperry representing The Lodge at Shelburne Bay, and Doug Moses with The Lodge at Shelburne Bay Real Estate, LLC appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mark Sperry explained the proposal to purchase a portion of the adjacent lot. Martin Gold assured the change in the fire escape to be adjacent to the building will be done and two parking spaces encroaching in the setback will be eliminated. Mr. Gold gave a history of the number of parking spaces on the lot. In 2004 approval was received to eliminate some parking to increase the amount of landscaping while a new façade was put on the building. Approval for a daycare in the building was granted and some parking was replaced with a playground for the daycare. In 1999 there were 160 spaces on the site which was decreased by 35 spaces Out of 125 spaces 118 were required, but per the conditional use approval for the daycare the macadam was reduced, landscaping was increased, and parking was decreased from 125 spaces to 111 spaces. The need is 94 spaces out of 111 spaces due to a decrease in commercial space by 6,000 s.f. for the daycare. The current request is to further decrease the 111 parking spaces by two spaces to a total of 109 parking spaces.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/6/10. Dean Pierce noted the number of parking spaces was not in the scope of earlier site plan reviews. The site plans were related to the daycare use, not the other uses in the building. The approved site plan is for a number of parking spaces greater than the amount with removal of two spaces. Martin Gold stated if necessary 25 more parking spaces can be created elsewhere on the site, but there is ample existing parking. The uses in the building include medical and dental offices, business and professional offices, and one daycare.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 10:20 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Dick Elkins, Claude LaPierre, J.D. Landry, Anna Rosenblum Palmer. (Kay Kraushaar was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jeff Zweber, David Palmer, Patricia Fontaine, Timothy Grannis, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Conditional Use, Retaining Wall, 291 Ordway Shore Road, Patricia Fontaine (CU09-20)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Jeff Zweber, David Mitchell, and Patricia Fontaine appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself and Mark Sammut assumed the duties of chairman. Mr. Sammut noted a revised section drawing labeled “S-1” has been submitted by the applicant.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Patricia Fontaine stated the comments of the DRB were taken under consideration and the seawall is now terraced to break up the smooth exterior of the wall. Concerns of the neighbor to the north regarding the rip-rap were also addressed (the rip-rap has been removed). The neighbor to the south had no problems with the wall. The Army Corps. of Engineers has approved the seawall as proposed. A facsimile of the wall was shown. There will be three courses of overlapped stone, explained Ms. Fontaine, and planter blocks will be used to accommodate plantings and vegetation. The seawall will have a three stage surface with the bottom third being smooth, the middle third being a broken pattern horizontally and with vegetation, and the top third being textured to look like dry laid stone. The stone wall that stops just south of the property (Lola Van Wagenen property) is a similarly textured wall (the wall is 10’ high). Effort will be made to match the color of the wall to blend in with the area, assured Ms. Fontaine, and it is hoped the existing ground cover will continue to grow onto the planter block. The existing wall is failing.

 

Concrete color samples and rock chips from the area were shown. David Mitchell explained a stacked or terraced wall is proposed for the top four and a half feet of the seawall which will have less pressure on it than the bottom of the wall where concrete and rebar will be used. Once plants being to grow in the planter blocks the wall will be more appealing.  Patricia Fontaine stated the cost of the project doubled with the planter block change.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer said her interpretation of the regulations is if the seawall is made of concrete it needs to be faced with stone. It is recognized there will be significant more cost involved. The effort by the applicant to make the wall appear more natural is appreciated, said Ms. Rosenblum Palmer. Ms. Fontaine stated the price to face the wall with stone was cost prohibitive. Mark Sammut observed stone facing gets beat off the wall by wave action and ice over time and then looks damaged.  The bylaws may need further review on the matter of stone facing, said Mr. Sammut.

 

Dick Elkins asked if the concrete wall could be shortened so a step can be added. Mr. Zweber said the wall is 11’ in height. The vertical portion is 6.5’ and 8’ with the first planter block. David Mitchell explained adding more planter blocks will require approval from the Corps. of Engineers and existing blocks and soil will have to be removed/disturbed. Mr. Elkins also asked if the color can be varied as the layers of concrete are poured. Patricia Fontaine said variation in color can be discussed with the concrete contractor, but the concrete could end up being striped which is not desired.

 

J.D. Landry asked if the blocks stay in place by their own weight or with rebar. Dave Mitchell said there are half spheres and poles that are nested together.

 

Mark Sammut asked if the drainage from the stairs is being impacted. Mr. Mitchell stated any water that may collect behind the wall is being addressed. There is no other impact on drainage.

 

Claude LaPierre asked how many anchors into the ledge there will be. Mr. Mitchell stated the anchors are twelve inch on center. There are two rows of poles every 12” drilled 18” into the ledge and then glued with epoxy. Mr. LaPierre asked if a footing is necessary. Mr. Mitchell said the ledge serves as the footing. The bars will be drilled into solid rock.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated 1/14/10 for the 1/20/10 meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs returned to the DRB and resumed the duties of chairman.

 

 

 

 

Peter Gibbs noted the mylar for the Cabot property development is ready for signature by the DRB, but the DRB did not approve the version of the mylar being signed (the Selectboard made alterations).

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 7:36 p.m.