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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Aime Aiyagt, Chris Kapsalis, Sandra Lawrence, Sharon Barton, K. Adams, Peter Daigel, Craig Smith, Maria Horn, David Conard, Carol Conard, John Giebink, Alex Varsakopoulos, Don & Hope Schultz, Carol Lewis, Brian Precourt, Sam Chauncey, Gwen Webster, Bill Boison, Edward Chamberlain, Dennis Webster, Maureen O’Brien, Bob Van Kleeck, Chris Snyder, Rose Garritano, John Milne, Robin Milne, Nancy Bradley, David Conrad, Manil Loudugly, Robert Platt, Thea Platt, Sally Conrad, Robert Senghas, Don Horenstein, Mary Ann Horenstein, Liz Paste, Alice Bassett, Miriam Almeleh, Barbara Beaman, Peter Zuk, Dana Valentine, Todd Scrandos, Jeff Kapsalis, David Webster, Frank Alexander, Dave Kell, Dereck Woolridge, Joel Baird (Burlington Free Press), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Final Plan Amendment, Modify Building Envelope, Lot 1, Sutton Farms Drive, Snyder (SUB05-08R1)

·        Preliminary Plan, Property Transfer & PUD-C, Tractor Supply, 2009 Shelburne Road & 3640 Shelburne Road, Primax Properties (SUB09-05)

·        Conditional Use Amendment,  Modify Nonconforming Structure, 638 Bay Road, Precourt (CU09-14R1)

·        Sketch Plan, Boundary Line Adjustment, 718 & 880 Barstow Road, O’Brien/Van Kleeck (SUB10-02)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

 

There were no comments at this time.

 

John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group, reiterated the written request for reconsideration of the Preliminary Plan decision by the Development Review Board (letter dated 2/19/10). Mr. Giebink also requested copies of minutes from the deliberative sessions and the actual vote by members on the Shelburne Wood application.

 

Peter Gibbs clarified the request is to reconsider conditions #3, #4, #5, and #6 of the Preliminary Plan approval and to vote to set a new hearing and date for reconsideration of the aforementioned conditions (3,4,5,6). When there is a hearing for reconsideration the applicant can submit new evidence concerning the conditions under discussion (3,4,5,6). The entire project will not be opened for review. Amanda Lafferty, Town Attorney, confirmed Chairman Gibbs’ summary, adding the DRB can decide to hear additional evidence or additional issues. Peter Gibbs noted the applicant will present information concerning conditions 3,4,5,6 and in discussion the DRB could request more evidence or information, but there is not a process to hear more evidence or information outside the reconsideration. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about possible outcomes of a reopened hearing. Ms. Lafferty explained the reopened hearing must be noticed for a date certain. The DRB will take additional evidence. The hearing may be continued pending additional evidence. Following receipt of evidence the hearing will be closed and deliberations will commence. Findings of fact and conclusions of law must be rendered within 45 days. Once the DRB closes evidence and considers the evidence it is unlikely prior evidence will be readdressed unless related to the new evidence. A new decision will be issued which could be the same decision or a changed decision. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer asked if the decision that is already made still stands (i.e. the applicant has Preliminary Plan approval with the conditions noted). Ms. Lafferty stated if the hearing is reopened the DRB may reconsider the decision and have a different outcome. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer asked if the applicant can act on the decision that has been issued. John Giebink interjected there will be no action taken on the decision. The funding agencies will be notified of the decision which makes the project unworkable and unfundable. Mr. Giebink stressed he would like the board members to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and not have conditions that do not work just to be able to vote ‘yes’.

 

Krister Adams, HFI, stated the Findings of Fact document is in the public domain. Several of the funders have seen the document and are nervous. Funding has not as yet been pulled, but the funders are nervous.

 

Craig Smith, Trinity Church, spoke in support of a vote in favor of the appeal, citing that there were two traffic studies which showed one egress onto Shelburne Road will have minimal impact and the second egress is not required or necessary. A second egress will drive up the project cost and make the affordable housing component impossible to do. The Town Plan speaks in support of affordable housing. The plan was declared to be adequate by two traffic studies reviewed by the DRB, stated Mr. Smith, adding there are missing facts such as the second egress not being necessary per the two traffic studies and that the Shelburnewood residents will not have homes if the second egress is required. Peter Gibbs noted conditions 3,4,5 pertain to restriction of development below the 130’ elevation on the northern portion of the site and the 140’ contour on the southern portion of the site. Condition #6 requires a second ingress/egress by the Harrington House.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer opined per John Giebink’s letter, dated 2/19/10, and the Town Attorney’s opinion, there is adequate evidence to reopen the hearing to review the issues of a second entrance, information from VTrans, review of soil samples in the traffic report, additional information on steep slopes, and traffic. Mark Sammut said he would like to see where the applicant wants to introduce evidence, and agreed the DRB owes information to the applicant on subcategories within the three or four areas of concern. Peter Gibbs suggested staff draft a bulleted memo to provide the applicant with more direction. The DRB could meet and draft the list.

 

 

John Giebink again asked that individual issues by members who voted ‘yes’ and voted ‘no’ be outlined and provided in an open public meeting so the applicant after investing $1 million thus far can decide if the project will proceed. Mr. Gibbs agreed there should be a public hearing. Mr. Giebink stated information from VTrans has been submitted regarding the maximum number of signalized entrances being one and at the most another access for emergency use only.

 

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, suggested that reopening the hearing for all conditions may be a better avenue rather than just conditions 3,4,5,6. Anna Rosenblum Palmer stated per the advice of the Town Attorney the DRB can ask for additional evidence if desired.

 

David Conard, Shelburne resident, encouraged holding deliberations in a public hearing. Mr. Conard recalled at Sketch Plan review he urged the DRB to discuss the application in open session because the applicant would be able to answer questions for the board. Peter Gibbs assured there will be a public meeting, but there may also be further deliberative sessions that are not public.

 

Carol Conard, Shelburne resident, asked about minutes taken in deliberative session and if the minutes are available to the public. Peter Gibbs stated minutes have not been taken.

 

Maria Horn, Shelburne resident, expressed disappointment in the process and deliberative session, noting the public would like to know what is going on.

 

Thea Platt, Shelburne resident, asked why the DRB must wait until the meeting on 3/24/10 to tell the public how each member voted on the application. It was explained per state statute a public hearing must be warned no less than 15 days prior to the meeting to give everyone a chance to attend. John Giebink said his attorney advised them it is the duty of the DRB after deliberative session at the next public hearing to put forth the vote and if the audience wants to know more the board can tell them. It is a reasonable request to know how and why the members voted as they did, said Mr. Giebink.

 

Joel Baird, Burlington Free Press, asked for clarification about deliberative session (not required, but can be taken if desired). Neither the Town Attorney nor the DRB responded. John Giebink questioned the secrecy.

 

 

Deliberative session was convened at 7:47 p.m. and the regular meeting reconvened at 7:55 p.m. Peter Gibbs stated the DRB needs to follow MAPA rules of procedure to discuss the merits of a project and that needs to be done in a public hearing. A public meeting is schedule on 3/24/10. John Giebink formally requested at the 3/24/10 hearing that board members speak individually as to why a certain condition was added and why the vote was such on the condition. Peter Gibbs acknowledged the request from Mr. Giebink and added a bulleted list providing some direction will be forwarded to the applicant.

 

Carol Lewis, former Shelburnewood resident, said she hopes the DRB understands and cares about the residents, but that is not the feeling people have. Peter Gibbs assured the DRB does care a lot evidenced by the tremendous amount of work and thought put into review of the application.

 

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.

 

Chris Snyder appeared on behalf of the application. The applicant submitted a revised landscape plan. It was noted some DRB members did a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Snyder reiterated the request for relocation or addition of square footage to the building envelope to Lot 1 on Sutton Farm Place. The original septic design approved by the state for Lot 1 had a replacement area, but the change of rules eliminated this requirement. The replacement area dictated the location of the building envelope. The septic design has been amended and the request before the DRB is for a change in the building envelope. The location of the proposed setback will be mitigated with additional plantings as specified on the site plan and a grouping of three evergreens of specified size planted at the northeast and southeast corners of the house or trees planted to supplement the trees along Dorset Street. The revised building envelope meets all lot requirements and the house meets all the setbacks where presently built.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer stated after the site visit her concerns about intent and precedent were allayed. It was apparent the re-siting was not a particular advantage to the original siting so it not likely the re-siting was intentionally done, but rather was a mistake. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer spoke in support of planting evergreens by the house. Plantings by Dorset Street need to be done per the original landscaping plan.

 

Peter Gibbs recalled the time and effort put forth in siting the building envelopes when the original subdivision application (WAG) was reviewed, and it is upsetting to have a mistake made. Mr. Gibbs said he does not know if there is any negative effect in moving the building 29’ to the east. Chris Snyder apologized for the error and assured it was not an intentional error.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo, dated 2/25/10 for the 3/3/10 meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Rose Garritano, neighbor, spoke in support of additional landscaping, but more trees are needed than proposed. Additional trees are needed between the house and Dorset Street and on the north side of Sutton Drive east of the existing berm.  Ms. Garritano echoed the concern about precedent and errors being made.

 

Tom Koerner, Shelburne resident, asked how the house was built in the wrong location. Chris Snyder stated there was a miscommunication between the original engineer and the Snyder engineer. The error was realized about a week before the change in building envelope was submitted. Anna Rosenblum Palmer observed the town does not have adequate staffing to check every building envelope. Dick Elkins said the burden should be on the developer to have their engineer site each house.

 

Jeff Kapsalis, Shelburne resident, mentioned in Colorado a surveyor must verify the house location at the footing stage at the developer’s cost. Anna Rosenblum Palmer agreed the town needs safeguards to avoid this type of situation in the future. Mr. Kapsalis pointed out a similar error was made with a house built on Pond Road. Peter Gibbs concurred it should be the developer’s responsibility to correctly site a house. A change in the town regulations may be needed to require proof of this.

 

There was further discussion of trees already planted and the need for additional trees for Lot 1 on Sutton Farms Drive. There is a combination of pine and spruce trees on the berm.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dereck Woolridge (Cross Consulting Engineers), Dennis Webster (architect), and Frank Alexander (Tractor Supply) appeared on behalf of the application. J.D. Landry recused himself. It was noted the DRB did a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dereck Woolridge reviewed landscaping (transplanting larger trees usually is not successful), lighting (two light fixtures in front of the building are 16’ in height), dumpster enclosure (cedar stockade fence around a 10’x 10’ concrete pad with arbor vitae for screening), sewer (connecting to the manhole is fine), and storm water (peak flow is reduced from existing flow). A revised lighting plan that has been submitted which includes any changes and the statistics ledger. There is a cardboard baler inside the building to handle boxes from the merchandise. The location of the dumpster is such to be functional for employees. Water and plumbing details will be available for Final Plan review. The storm water application submitted to the state has been provided to staff. There was brief review of the treatment of storm water run off (retention pond for primary and secondary treatment).

 

Dennis Webster reviewed changes to the building. The counter gable roof has been removed. Color is being used to make the corner of the building more visible. The northeast view includes a window.

 

Mark Sammut commented the dumpster enclosure of cedar takes away from the look of the building. Mr. Webster suggested a block enclosure instead. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested moving the dumpster closer to the door. Frank Alexander agreed to further investigate the location of the dumpster.

 

Mr. Alexander stated Tractor Supply is very concerned about security, personal safety, and liability so the lack of lights on the east wall is worrisome. Mark Sammut suggested overhead pole lights with cut-off fixtures be added. Peter Gibbs suggested bollard lights that shine on the building (not visible from the street). The applicant was referred to Section 1975.9 (security lighting provisions) for information.

 

Mark Sammut asked about signs. Mr. Alexander said there will be a sign application for a sign over the building (externally illuminated) and a monument sign.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated 2/25/10 for the 3/3/10 meeting. A revised site layout showing the easement from the property line to Shelburne Road was submitted. John Adams noted draft easement language from the applicant has been received. The DRB received a copy of the construction permit. John Adams noted the Police Chief reviewed the plans and had no concerns. The DRB received a memo from the Fire Chief, dated 3/3/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Precourt stated the propane tank in front of the house will be buried or connection made to natural gas service when available (within the next couple of years). The parking area has been enlarged with crushed stone so cars do not have to back out onto Bay Road which is a dangerous maneuver. Also, the driveway is used by many trucks to turn around before the underpass.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/3/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

J.D. Landry returned to the DRB.

 

Maureen O’Brien and Robert Van Kleeck appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Maureen O’Brien said the parcels are adjacent to each other and the boundary line adjustment will make the lot at 880 Barstow Road have a more regular shape. Nothing is being changed on either lot except the boundary line. The lot at 880 Barstow Road is owned by the George O’Brien Trust. Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Van Kleeck own the parcel at 718 Barstow Road.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/3/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Rose Garritano, Shelburne resident, asked if there is any intent to develop the lots. Ms. O’Brien reiterated nothing is changing in the existing plans as was stated in the staff report.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Eric Knudsen, Steve Roy, Doug Moses, Gail Hendeson-King, Brian Precourt, Tony Wells, Arthur Dreher, Brian Sullivan, Sandy Carter, Alan Bankus, Andrew Davis, A.J. Lanpher, Wendy Smith, George Imbrie, Lauri Brown, Roger Dickinson, Andrew Thomas, Gregg Beldock, Tom Anderson, Michael Wool, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Shrine & Gathering Area, 92 Church Street, St. Catherine of Siena Parish (DR10-03)

·        Design Review, Chimney and Windows, 175 Harbor Road, Wendy Smith (DR10-04)

·        Sketch Plan\Conditional Use, Commercial Storage in Existing Barn, 3871 Shelburne Road, Precourt (SUB10-03\CU10-03)

·        Telecommunications Facility, Antennas on Town Water Tank, 20 Green Hills Drive, Verizon Wireless (TF10-01)

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

·        Post Remand Order, Amendment/Expansion Elderly Housing Complex PRD, Pine Haven Shores Road & Shelburne Road, Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community, LLC (CU07-10\SUB98-06R4\SP09-05\CU09-19\SUB09-04b)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

 

Peter Gibbs responded to comments about the DRB said at the Selectboard meeting on 3/9/10 regarding the DRB blocking or stopping projects by its procedures. Mr. Gibbs confirmed the DRB does follow a procedure and does seek and follow legal advice when sought. The process is the applicant gives testimony and provides evidence. Site visits may be conducted. Reports from consultants and more evidence are heard. The hearing is closed and all decisions are made in deliberative session. With less complex applications the DRB will deliberate before the applicant and develop conditions of approval. The application moves through quickly. More complex applications require more time. Other comments made at the Selectboard meeting said the DRB is “rigid”. Mr. Gibbs stressed the DRB is exactly opposite, and in fact, has allowed phased review of an application, accepted deferrals from Preliminary Review to Final Review, and did a time line for the applicant’s benefit for funding. The DRB is pliable to help projects through the process. Regarding information and comments about the DRB being negative, this is misleading, stated Mr. Gibbs, because the DRB does not exist to give accolades to a particular project. The DRB assumes each project has a good mission and good goals, but must also ensure the project meets town zoning, subdivision and conditional use criteria. There is a misunderstanding about the DRB taking its time in review of an application. It is the charge of the DRB to be thorough and ensure the project complies with the regulations and bylaws of the town. The Town of Shelburne that exists today is because of the Town Plan and zoning bylaws and compliance to the rules and vision of the town. The Planning Commission handles revisions to the rules and regulations. The DRB implements the rules and regulations. Peter Gibbs mentioned the effort being made to not have three current members on the DRB reappointed when their terms expire this year. All three members (Peter Gibbs, Dick Elkins, Kay Kraushaar) are interested in being reappointed to the DRB. The members are long time volunteers to the town with a depth of knowledge about past applications. The town needs that kind of experience and advice on the DRB and Planning Commission. There were also comments about members serving on two town boards, continued Mr. Gibbs, and that this may not be the best situation. The zoning regulations were revised in 2009 and 2010, and in many regards the rewrites were to allow the projects being seen today. The town needs to have DRB members who can communicate to the Planning Commission what works or not. It is a benefit to the town to have people volunteer to serve on both boards.

 

Dick Elkins acknowledged there is a certain level of frustration because there is a project that the DRB cannot talk about or answer questions.

 

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.

 

Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Precourt explained the proposal to replace the existing wood shrine with a granite shrine in a three-sided covered structure on a 26’x 26’ informal and uncovered gathering space at the front of St. Catherine of Sienna Church. There will be a table and benches in the gathering area. Additional lot coverage is less than one percent. There will be no lighting. The granite and pavers will match the other stone material on the church. No church services will be held on the gathering area.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/17/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Wendy Smith appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Wendy Smith explained the masonry chimney on the south side of the house will be removed and the window and wall will be replaced with a set of three windows to allow natural light and air flow. A new chimney will be added on the west side of the house to vent the furnace. The new chimney will likely not be visible from the street.  Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee (SHP&DRC) made suggestions as to the height of the chimney and size of the corner board. The plans reflect these suggestions.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/17/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Precourt explained there is a three unit apartment building and two barns on the property at 3871 Shelburne Road. Inquiries have been received about renting space in one of the barns for a dance studio or using the barn space for storage. Allowing a dance studio would require the installation of water and sewer service which is not likely. There is already storage of equipment in the larger (long) barn on the lower level. The upper sections of the long barn and the entire small (short) barn could be leased for storage. There would be no outside storage. Nine parking spaces have been added to the six existing spaces on the site for the apartments. The parking area is gravel (only the apron of the driveway is paved). It is anticipated people using the storage space will simply load/unload their vehicle and leave.

 

Claude LaPierre asked if the barn would be converted to more dwelling units. Brian Precourt stated there are no development plans.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/17/10. It was noted the long barn measures 22’x 80’ and has a basement, first floor, and loft. The short barn measures 30’x 22’ and has a basement, first floor, and second floor.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Sullivan, Art Dreher, Tony Wells, Andrew Davis, and Sandy Carter appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Sullivan noted the minutes of a previous presentation by Verizon Wireless erroneously noted Mr. Davis’ occupation as ‘attorney’.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Sullivan gave a brief history of the application and the negotiations with the town for space on the water tank. Two leases have been negotiated, one with the town and one with Mark Snelling for storage space within his building for equipment. A mount for the antennas already on the tower as well as the antennas for Verizon Wireless was designed. A photo simulation of the water tank with the antenna array was shown. The water tank is the preferred site, explained Mr. Sullivan, because better coverage is provided and the provision in the town ordinance to use existing structures whenever possible is met. Testing has confirmed the signal will reach the service area and the radio frequency energy emitted is within FCC guidelines. The exact location for storage within the Snelling warehouse has not yet been determined. There will also be an underground propane tank (location to be determined). Fifteen antennas will be mounted on the water tank (five on each side). There are two ATT antennas on the tank which will be moved to the legs of the new mounting device. The array will be grey in color rather than blue to blend in better. Cables will run down the backside of the water tank connecting to equipment in the warehouse. The cables on the tank will be painted the same color as the tank and the cable on the metal framework will be painted metallic grey.

 

Dick Elkins asked if there is room on the tank for additional services. Art Dreher stated Verizon Wireless hired a company to determine if the tank is structurally sound for Verizon’s antennas. Other or additional antennas were not researched. Andrew Davis stated a recent structural analysis did contemplate some changes that ATT is proposing. Between the present and the tank failing there is a certain amount of structural strength remaining. Brian Sullivan stated every carrier active in the market is located on the tank including Verizon Wireless (the fifth carrier on the tank).

 

Peter Gibbs asked about generators. Art Dreher said there will be one generator on the site inside the Snelling building. The generator uses propane gas because a higher pressure than what is available in natural gas lines is needed. The device necessary to allow use of natural gas is expensive and Vermont Gas is not willing to make the purchase. The propane tank will be buried.

 

There was mention of equipment removal after operation ceases for a year. Brian Sullivan stated if the antennas are removed the mounting hardware remains for the town’s antennas. The town will own the hardware.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/17/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The applicant withdrew the application.

 

Doug Moses, Roger Dickinson, Gail Henderson-King, Steve Roy, Eric Knudsen, Mike Wool, Lauri Brown, Andrew Thomas, and Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Doug Moses gave a brief history of the project which has been in the permitting process for the past four years. A decision on the project by the DRB is requested. Items in the Environmental Court Remand Order were reviewed. Mr. Moses noted Shelburne Bay Senior Living has been in operation since 1999. An addition to the building was built in 2003. From 2004 to the present there has been full occupancy with a wait list of 138 individuals. Shelburne Bay is providing a lifestyle focusing on quality of care and support of the right to age with dignity in an active community. The existing Ponderosa Restaurant building at 2522 Shelburne Road will be removed and a new 23,665 s.f. building constructed with an underground connector to the existing Shelburne Bay facility. The new building will be built into the slope and will have two stories facing east and four stories facing west.

 

There was discussion of access, parking, and setbacks. Eric Knudsen stated the principal access is off Pine Haven Shores Road and this is considered the front of the property. The front yard setback requirement does not have the same buffer requirements as the side and rear yards. The setback is 60’ front, but up to 50% of the front yard can be used for parking and access. According to Roger Dickinson’s analysis 34.5% of the front yard is parking or access. The setback from Shelburne Road is approximately 85’. The parking area is over 50’ away. The driveway to Pine Haven Shores Road extends slightly into the side yard. With the jog in the building the side yard is measured 50’ parallel to the front property line (the actual measurement on the site is 51.8’). The amount of the front yard used for parking and access (34.5%) includes the paved driveway. The connection to the Super 8 will remain, but much of the other pavement will be removed. Lot coverage is 33.9% (50% is the maximum allowed).

 

There was mention of the proposal being reviewed under the previous ordinance. Mark Sammut asked for a list of changes in the plan from the original version. Roger Dickinson stated open space has been added as requested by the town (shown as diagonal hatching on the site plan). The total is 34.5% of the project area (the regulations require a minimum of 33%). Regarding parking, the existing facility is for independent living residents and there are 75 “lottery” parking spaces. There are 88 parking spaces to serve the existing facility and 40 new spaces being added of which 26 are in the new parking area, five are by the service area, and nine are in the lower area. There are 220 people plus staff occupying both buildings. The calculation for parking is based on the ITE Manual and the town’s requirement for elderly housing parking (220 residents less 75 existing parking spaces leaves 145 spaces multiplied by .36 equals 54 spaces). Lauri Brown noted about a fifth of the independent residents have a vehicle so the remaining parking is unused and available for visitors. Gregg Beldock stressed the parking numbers are based on the ITE Manual. It behooves Shelburne Bay to provide adequate and sufficient parking, said Mr. Beldock.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the retaining wall and grading. Roger Dickinson stated the building will be built into the slope to minimize the exterior retaining walls. The third floor level will be at grade as will be the first floor level on the west side. The site was gently sloping originally, but over the years and with development of the Travel Lodge and Ponderosa fill has been brought in and the area built up to a steep embankment. The new building will be on original soils. A structural engineer will incorporate the appropriate foundation layout. There are smaller walls to transition from two stories to one story. A letter from Tim Hardy provides engineering details. Steve Roy stated there will be plantings at the bottom, middle, and top levels. There are two shorter walls instead of one massive wall. Building height is slightly less than 35’. At no point does the building height exceed 35’. The building is a total of four stories with a footprint of 23,665 s.f. Some of the floors are smaller on the lower level because the building is built into the hill. The mansard look was used to decrease the scale of the building. The façade facing the existing facility (southwest side) has a gable roof with shingles and the same type of siding. Gregg Beldock added the previous building lacked articulation and was too close to Shelburne Road and the retaining wall which did not allow for landscaping. Land was purchased to the west to answer concerns of the town and the building was moved to the west to articulate the façade and have a garden area. The retaining wall was stepped. The viewscape from Shelburne Road was improved, said Mr. Beldock.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about exits. Steve Roy explained the primary exits are to the south and north. The dwelling units are to the west. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer asked about residents being able to walk to the lake safely. Doug Moses stated there is an exit on the first floor (service entrance) and an exit on the third floor to Pine Haven Shores Road. Roger Dickinson added there are a number of walkways accessible from the existing building that connect to the driveway to Pine Haven Shores Road. Lauri Brown stated generally the residents in assisted living are accompanied by staff. Gregg Beldock pointed out the new addition is for residents requiring a higher level of care. The community would not encourage the residents to go out an unsupervised exit.

 

Dick Elkins asked about the number of residents. Gregg Beldock stated the maximum allowed by the court will not be reached. It is likely there will be 90 combined beds in the new addition to the community. There are 134 residents already living on the site. The combined total for the entire site is 220 individuals.

 

Peter Gibbs noted the walkway previously required along the access drive from Shelburne Road was not constructed. Doug Moses agreed the staff notes made this comment. There will be an access from Shelburne Road to the facility. Mr. Gibbs asked if the walkway was a permit condition. John Adams confirmed the walkway was part of the approval. A Notice of Violation was issued, but a Certificate of Occupancy was issued so the town’s ability to enforce was impacted. Gregg Beldock assured the application will be in compliance with all previous conditions. The application is under the regulations in effect in 2007.

 

Roger Dickinson reviewed the lighting upgrade that is proposed. Existing exterior lights will be replaced in the parking and circulation areas. There will be new lighting with the addition. The lights will not exceed three footcandles, and at the property line there will be no spill over. The light fixtures are shielded. The light by the service entrance will also be less than three footcandles. There is no lighting on the walkway portion to Shelburne Rod. Some bollard type lighting can be added at a later time. Photometric plans were provided to staff.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about trip generation (37 peak hour morning, 64 peak hour evening). Roger Dickinson stated the numbers are due to additional visitors and turnover of staff at the end of the day. Gregg Beldock added there is less staff on the night shift and a higher ratio of staff on the day and dinner shifts. Roger Dickinson explained the priority to the north/south flow of traffic on Shelburne Road at the traffic signal (level of service “A”). On the side street there will be a short wait at the light so the level of service is “C” which is unchanged from the existing condition. The proposal generates less traffic than the former Ponderosa Restaurant site.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about impact on town resources. John Adams noted comments from Public Works and the Fire Chief have not yet been received. Roger Dickinson noted there is a memo from Bernie Gagnon regarding water and waste water service. Regarding fire flow, according to Rick Lewis the best flow in town is on Pine Haven Shores Road. There is a 16” main line along the railroad tracks that serves the town. Shelburne Bay ties into this line with an 8” line. There are several hydrants in place plus a 10” line on Pine Haven Shores Road that tie into a 10” line running north/south on Shelburne Road. Regarding the sewer line, a new line connects to the existing west side of the Artec building running north to Pine Haven Shores Road, but there are some problems so it is likely a new line will run from the building north to tie into sewer service on Pine Haven Shores Road. Lauri Brown noted there is about 90% incontinence with the population in the community at Shelburne Bay.  Gregg Beldock stated thorough studies were done which showed no impact on educational services in the town by the proposal and the greatest need for assisted living units for elderly people and decreasing need for independent living units. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about emergency services. Roger Dickinson pointed out there is space for access by ambulances.

 

Ms. Rosenblum Palmer listed additional information needed from the applicant, including comments from Public Works (copy of the memo from Bernie Gagnon), soil information, landscape narrative, plans of the retaining walls and dumpster enclosure, emergency service access information, and open space calculations. Dick Elkins added engineering detail on the slopes and building elevations is needed as well. The DRB requested larger scale drawings for easier reading.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if there will be changes to the amount of impervious surface. Roger Dickinson noted there is less impervious surface with the proposal. Mr. Gibbs asked about natural lighting on the east side of the building. Steve Roy stated there are window wells for natural light into the pool area. There is no retaining wall on the two-story building except on the south corner in the transition area. The new building footprint is 23,000 s.f.. The footprint for Shelburne Bay Senior Living building is 138,000 s.f. or about 42,000 s.f. per floor.

 

Gail Henderson-King reviewed the landscaping on the site. There is existing landscaping at Shelburne Bay and some on the site of the addition. There are trees on the north property line by the new walkway. The building will be built into the hillside and tie into Shelburne Bay. The same effort of landscaping at the connection of the two buildings will be done as exists at the entrance to the existing building. The dining area will have a nice view into the gardens. Plantings will be hardy species tolerant of the weather, soils, and salt. New soil will be added to give the plants the best opportunity to thrive. A mixture of perennials, grasses, shrubs, and small trees will be planted. Vines will be added on the lower walls. On the east side of the site a mix of evergreens and deciduous tress will be planted for screening. The same will be done on the west side of the site. There will be screening along Pine Haven Shores Road by the service entrance and parking area as well as by the main entrance (to screen the parking lots). As many of the existing trees will be saved as possible. There is a park like space created by Pine Haven Shores Road and Shelburne Road to include some flowering trees and evergreen shrubs. Along the walkway by the assisted living facility there will be a series of small gardens with a mix of small flowering trees, shrubs, and perennials which can be viewed from inside the building or by the walk outside.  Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked if there is a connection between the walking area and the walking path around the pond. Roger Dickinson said this is not possible without a stairway between the two walls.

 

Peter Gibbs observed on the west side is a slope and a lot of pavement from the Super 8, Bluewater, and Shelburne Bay access. Mr. Gibbs asked if comments from Fire/Rescue regarding access to the building on the west side have been received.

 

Dick Elkins mentioned the waiver request for parking. The court agreement specifies that the DRB has discretion to agree to what is a reasonable requirement. Peter Gibbs stated there must be a rationale that there are reasonable parking requirements. Anna Rosenblum Palmer noted an independent parking expert can be engaged before closing the hearing. There was mention of doing a site visit. It was noted the DRB received much information to be reviewed before a decision can be made. Eric Knudsen suggested the hearing be closed and the DRB draft conditions to provide the information requested at final review. A site visit can be done as well. The court order requires the application proceed expeditiously and the construction season is fast approaching. There is urgent need for the housing by clients on the waiting list. Gregg Beldock stressed there is a situation with living arrangements and other factors that are driving the need to expedite the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/17/10.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

 

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Eric Knudsen, Mark Sperry, Roger Dickinson, Michael Wool, Andrew Thomas, Doug Moses, Steven Roy, Charlie Brush, Mary Brush, Barb Giebink, Shawn Gilpin, Ten Winfrey, Martin Gold, Gregg Beldock, Don & Hope Schultz, Dorothea Penar, Carol & Don Lewis, Carol Conard, Lois D’Arcangelo, Sharon Barton, Peter Zuk, Mary Hoffman, Martha Hoar, Sally Conrad, Morris Pike, Barbara Beaman, Ellie Skolfield, Robin Milne, Mary Lou Mannie, John Milne, Phil & Vicki Carleton, Sean Folley, Ginny Ockert, Gwen Webster, Robert Senghas, Anne M. August, Junnos L. Powell, Ruth Painter, Liz Pasti, Don Horenstein, Jerry Barton, Sandy Lawrence, Joan Lenes, Rosalyn Graham, Maria Horn, Russ Colvin, Bill Bolan, Peter Daigle, Tom Anderson, Joel Baird (Burlington Free Press), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Post Remand Order, Amendment/Expansion Elderly Housing Complex PRD, Pine Haven Shores Road & Shelburne Road, Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community, LLC (CU07-10\SUB98-06R4\SP09-05\CU09-19\SUB09-04b)

·        Reconsideration of Application, Shelburne Wood Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road/82 Shelburnewood Drive/5171 Shelburne Road, Shelburnewood, LLC (SUB08-03)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 6 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.

 

Doug Moses, Roger Dickinson, Steve Roy, Eric Knudsen, Mark Sperry, Mike Wool, Andrew Thomas, and Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application. Submittals from the applicant included renderings of the building and elevations, a letter (dated 3/23/10) from Willis Consulting, Inc. (Mike Willis) regarding the geotechnical report, and response to comments from Craig Wooster, Fire Chief.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Roger Dickinson addressed comments from the Fire Chief, noting a meeting with Craig Wooster would be prudent to discuss the construction of the facility. Sprinklers can be added. Details on the drainage way are available. There is access to the underground connector (is not a confined space). The space is similar to the parking garage at the hospital. On the northerly side there is a stairway and elevator to access the new building. The southwest corner of the new building connects to the northeast corner of the existing building. There is full fire truck accessibility to the site via any of the driveways. Mr. Dickinson said he would like to meet with the Fire Chief to discuss the construction of the building, windows, and accessibility for fire vehicles in detail. It is possible to terrace the west side of the building to provide some access. Steve Roy stated the building is concrete and steel, not wood. The building will be fully protected (sprinklered and built of noncombustible material). The building is staffed 24 hours a day. There will be space between the terrace and the building for a fire lane. The paver concept covered with grass will be used. The route will be delineated with fences. Gregg Beldock added at Shelburne Bay there is fire access around the pond. The area is stone and plowed in winter. By final review all the issues raised by the Fire Chief will be placated, assured Mr. Beldock.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the turning radius. Roger Dickinson stated Civil Engineering has the diagrams (so town staff should also have the information). The applicant also has copies of the diagrams.  Mr. Gibbs asked about the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Roy pointed out the retaining wall allows the dumpsters to be well screened. The dumpsters are enclosed with fencing. There is a nine foot wall with a railing above the fence. A structural engineer designed the wall.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about emergency access to the windows above the fence. Mr. Roy said there is access from the parking lane by the dumpster location. A ladder truck or ground ladders can access the two-story area. The slope is one-on-two.

 

Tim Hardy, structural engineer, reviewed information on the stability of the bank and footprint of the building. The first 30’ of the top of the bank is fill. There is bedrock below the 30’ mark. The statement about soil bearings not appearing suitable means the materials there are not suitable to set a building on, but the footings will be on bedrock. The site is more suitable with the building pushed into the bank. The fill will be removed and the area backfilled with clean material. The site retaining wall is standard. The east wall of the building will be more challenging, but is feasible. There will be a two-story wall tied into the bank.

 

Dick Elkins asked how close the parking area behind the motel is to the building. Roger Dickinson estimated 90’ horizontally between the two buildings. From the edge of the asphalt it is about 50’. The coverage of pavement was calculated at 33.9% of the front yard.

 

Mark Sammut asked if the easement is in place for the Super 8 Motel. Eric Knudson said there is not a recorded easement of record, but the access to the Super 8 has been there for a long time. It is likely they have a prescriptive right to use the access which is not being closed, said Mr. Knudson. Mr. Sammut mentioned memorializing the easement. Mr. Knudson pointed out any future alterations of the site plan will require review by the DRB.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received an email from staff regarding the original approval and reviewing the project as constructed and proposed. John Adams explained the existing conditions fall under the old bylaws and the new building will be under the new bylaws. There are several items that are different from what was approved. Some of the items are no longer applicable, such as the lighting because that is being changed. The applicant and staff have been communicating on lighting details. Dean Pierce provided copies of the correspondence. Staff also noted the sidewalk that was proposed with the initial application was not constructed. The DRB can decide if this should be constructed as approved in the plan that was before the Planning Commission. Doug Moses stated a sidewalk to the proposed building is planned. Peter Gibbs noted the sidewalk is north of the original sidewalk that was proposed by a few hundred feet (by the bus stop and controlled intersection).

 

PUBLIC INPUT

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Mark Sammut noted issues with the Fire Chief and lighting need to be resolved. Anna Rosenblum Palmer commented the DRB will come forth with a decision and it is likely there will be conditions. Dean Pierce mentioned there were some decisions in the past that gave staff reason to believe the town interpretation of the bylaws may have a different setback for the corner lot. It comes down to definition of the principal access for the PRD. Anna Rosenblum Palmer stated the principal access has been shifted to Pine Haven Shores Road. Peter Gibbs asked about applying the setback from Shelburne Road. Eric Knudson stated the setback requirement on Shelburne Road is a percentage of coverage and this impacts the PRD.

 

The DRB will render a decision on the application within 45 days.

 

John Giebink and Charlie Brush appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Giebink distributed a document confirming that the Shelburne Wood project meets or exceeds the Town Plan goals, objectives, and vision, and a memo to the DRB, dated 3/20/10, in response to the DRB memo of 3/12/10.

 

Peter Gibbs explained his point of view on the conditions of the approval for the project. Regarding the issue of two entrances to the project, safety is the reason, not traffic, said Mr. Gibbs. The proposal offers one entry/exit to Route 7 and a one-way emergency access through the Shelburne Inn. The town regulations discourage a single access and state with 30 or more units a second access is required. The Shelburne Wood project will have 265 units with potentially 470 residents, a third of the units being elderly housing. There could be changes to some of the uses in the elderly housing component over time. The emergency access is through an existing business property (Shelburne Inn) where eight businesses and a condominium project have been approved for the site. Again, the reason for a second access was mainly safety, reiterated Mr. Gibbs. The town regulations also say if another access is impractical it does not have to be required, but the development is well over 30 units and has 700’ of road frontage on Route 7. As well the parcel abuts property the Town Plan mentions as another possible access so the impractical criterion may not be met. Another issue was the impact on businesses in the area by the proposed entrance/exit on Route 7. The development is in the Mixed Use zone, but the development is mostly residential with very little commercial. Not every mix is in the zone, but the development must fit in the zone without detracting from existing businesses. Access into the existing businesses should at least stay the same or be enhanced, said Mr. Gibbs. Another matter was the slopes and impact on habitant. The calculation to determine the amount of developable land requires removing slopes greater than 15% from the developable portion. There is argument about building on 15% slope. Mr. Gibbs said he feels if the town is connected to a natural resource that is valued (i.e. LaPlatte River and river corridor) then there should not be development there. The Selectboard just approved spending $180,000 to secure the rights to slope areas by the Zen Center and the Shelburne Wood development is downstream of that area. The question is why develop on part of the river habitat, stated Mr. Gibbs. The DRB went out of typical procedures (granting deferrals to final review, doing a phased review, moving forward without the determination from the design review committee) and worked hard to keep the project progressing and to meet time constraints related to funding, continued Mr. Gibbs, adding he had concerns about the size of the ESSH building and how the 100,000 s.f. building fits in the character of the area, but the majority of the DRB did not share the same concern and did not feel a condition in the approval was necessary. Constructive criticism of the DRB’s handling of the application was heard at recent Selectboard meetings, said Mr. Gibbs, and the DRB was described as being rigid and negative. The DRB is not here to say the project has a good mission and goals; that is assumed. The DRB looks at the details of the zoning bylaws, conditional use criteria, town plan, and subdivision regulations to see if the project fits as many of the requirements as possible, and that is why Shelburne is as it is because of attention to the minutia of projects to meeting the requirements of the bylaws. Mr. Gibbs reiterated when he considered the safety of residents in future years (out 30 years) then a second access was needed. Also, the development has to enhance the businesses nearby, and the LaPlatte River corridor needs to be saved and protected as much as possible so building on the slope should be avoided. With regard to the process, the DRB closed the public hearing and deliberated on many occasions, meeting before and after DRB meetings. The agreement (approval) was drafted for signature (some members were traveling and could not get in to sign the agreement in time). With four signatures on the document the agreement was publicized and the deadline was met. The application is not complete, but it is expected all the information will be presented at Final review. Now the application is under reconsideration, and if the DRB is satisfied with an item then more information will not be necessary from the applicant. The DRB outlined for the applicant where more information was requested. It is expected the applicant will provide additional evidence based on the conditions requested to be reopened for reconsideration.

 

Chris Kapsalis, Shelburne resident, asked for an explanation as to what happened in deliberative session and the details behind the conditions. Peter Gibbs said each DRB member explained their position on the conditions and any additional information that is needed in a memo to the applicant.

 

John Giebink said the memo, dated 3/24/10, addressed the items from individual DRB members in three classifications. The first was access, Route 7 west side properties, and safety. All the traffic studies that were submitted provided the information needed based on the Town Plan. The second classification was slopes, LaPlatte River, habitat, and perimeter of the project. Lot coverage is 9% out of an allowed 20%. The engineers (applicant’s and town’s) and the state had no significant findings. The third classification is impact on the character of the area. Per the state’s historic preservationist and town committees the project complies with all the town’s goals. The project was designed and conceived to conform and exceed town goals as demonstrated in the document titled “Here are Direct Quotes from the Shelburne Town Plan Listing Goals, Objectives, and Visions that the Shelburne Wood Project Meets or Exceeds”. The project conforms to the Town Plan and bylaws, stressed Mr. Giebink.

 

Charlie Brush read a statement from Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG) to the DRB and the community at large announcing GMDG can not longer pursue permits and construction of the Shelburne Wood project. Mr. Brush said it is hoped the town addresses the dire reality of the Shelburnewood residents. The project conforms to the Town Plan and has enthusiastic support of federal, state and local organizations (Smart Growth, Conservation Law Foundation, and others). Complying with the DRB conditions could have made the project not be in conformance with the Town Plan. It is hoped adjustments to the permit process can be made because to have a sustainable downtown smart growth is needed. Mr. Brush extended thanks to all who supported the project effort.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer said she liked the concepts of the project, but not the execution. The applicant did reshape the vision and demonstrated much flexibility. The plan for Preliminary Review was excellent. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer said she supported the plan the best she could.

 

Krister Adams, HFI, said it has been a privilege to work with GMDG and the residents of Shelburnewood. The project may not happen as it is now, but HFI is not going away and will help the Shelburnewood residents in any way.

 

Vicki Carleton, Shelburnewood, thanked John Giebink and Charlie Brush for trying to help the residents of Shelburnewood. Ms. Carleton said the last five years have been difficult for everyone, and now the greatest fear has happened, that the residents will be homeless. Ms. Carleton said she has been coming to the DRB and Selectboard asking for help and it is hoped the town can help the residents now.

 

Sally Conrad, Shelburne resident and former legislator, said she has never seen a committee where each member’s stand on an issue was not known. The members who spoke up are applauded. There is disappointment in those who did not.

 

Maria Horn, Shelburne resident, expressed disappointment in the DRB’s handling of the application, noting the applicant addressed every objection, but the DRB still took issue, even with testimony from experts in the field. Ms. Horn said she is distressed with the DRB on a human level and professional level.

 

Russ Colvin, Shelburne, agreed with previous statements. Mr. Colvin stated traffic experts hired by the town and developer did a peer review of the development. The Fire Dept. indicated there was not a safety issue with the ingress/egress to the development. These are local experts that the town relies on for guidance, yet the DRB, a body of laypersons, did not come to that consensus, observed Mr. Colvin.

 

Robert Senghas, Shelburne resident and former attorney, now a practicing clergyman, expressed dismay at the process by the DRB; the ultimate effect is immoral. Mr. Senghas urged the members to examine their conscience for matters of compassion.

 

Craig Smith, Trinity Church, observed the DRB members owned up to the reasons (conditions) being subjective. Rev. Smith stated there is not enough warrant in the Town Plan to hold the board accountable to actively support affordable housing. Also, there is lack of clarity at the Selectboard level that there needs to be a promotion of affordable housing in Shelburne. Shelburne is lacking the political will to do what needs to be done. The heart of Shelburne is saying keep the residents here and have affordable housing in town. Getting into the minutia does not let the principles guide the board. It is time for the DRB to identify a vision of what to support and to build the kind of town wanted by all, stressed Mr. Smith.

 

Joan Lenes, Shelburne resident, former school board member, and current state representative of Chittenden 5-2, spoke of her nonstop work in an effort for the people of Vermont. The economic engines needed in Vermont are huge (current use, affordable housing, economic development) and it is important to put effort forward and not turn away businesses, residents, and economic development opportunities. The town needs to reexamine what is happening. The money secured for the Shelburne Wood project will be taken by other projects and the land will likely be developed by someone else. Ms. Lenes said she is embarrassed and disappointed with what has happened.

 

There was discussion of what happened after the decision for reconsideration that led to the developer’s decision to withdraw the application.  John Giebink stated GMDG determined all the conditions made the project unfeasible, and as a result the contracts on the land have been formally terminated. The funding agencies will be notified that the funds can be given to other projects.  Ms. Rosenblum Palmer agreed the approval conditions were absurd, but said it is likely additional testimony would have stripped away the conditions before Final review. Testimony such as VTrans indicating it is impractical to make another curb cut would have removed the condition. Traffic was not the issue, but rather cars queuing in front of the businesses, and the businesses being willing to explore an aligned intersection in the future. Mark Sammut added the DRB was trying to approve the project rather than deny it, and it was hoped more testimony on the items identified would support relaxation of the conditions. Mr. Giebink replied the risk of time and money (four years and $1.3 million thus far) did not add up. If a project is good for the people and the town then the DRB should embrace it and not try to pick it apart. The process in Shelburne has been very long and difficult, especially compared to other projects done in other towns and states, said Mr. Giebink, adding typically when the townspeople support a project the town embraces it and tries to figure out how to make it happen. Charlie Brush pointed out there are at least three members on the DRB who would likely vote against the project no matter what is done. Marie Horn interjected explanation of each person’s concerns and point of view on the project is what the public wanted to hear all along. The concerns needed to be out on the table. The DRB is an extension of the people and the people need to know what and why, to have open dialogue and not go into deliberative session.

 

Bill Bolan, Shelburne resident, opined the DRB does not want working class people living in the town. At every meeting the DRB looked for more delay. The application should have been settled three years ago. Former town elders would not have tolerated the situation. Mr. Bolan speculated an application for expensive condominiums would likely have been approved very quickly, and that some members of the DRB are “pocket pawns”. Mr. Bolan contended the entire matter is a big farce and the residents of Shelburnewood have now been made homeless.

 

A woman in the audience commented on the difference in attitude of the DRB versus the community.

 

Pete Daigle, Shelburnewood, read a statement about the emotional ramifications the process has caused him. The process has caused frustration and been emotionally detrimental to his health. Mr. Daigle said he feels undervalued as a resident of Shelburne, and as a traumatic brain injury survivor has had emotional setbacks. Mr. Daigle said his stability and sustainability have been compromised with the process.

 

Tom Anderson, Shelburne resident and former developer, said after observing the actions of the DRB and its predecessors he is ashamed and angry with what has happened. The entire process has gone on too long. The DRB should discuss the process and what can be done to support projects.

 

Chris Kapsalis, Shelburne resident, challenged the DRB to convince the members who voted against the project to work with the four members who voted in support of the project to eliminate the conditions, and if this is done, GMDG is challenged to stay with the project at least until the written material is received.

 

Sean Folley, Shelburne resident, asked what positive outcome was foreseen by requesting the reconsideration. Charlie Brush said the initial reaction was to ask for reconsideration, but after more thought it was decided the project could not continue. Vicki Carleton publicly asked Charlie Brush to reconsider the decision to withdraw the project. John Adams outlined the options: the DRB can continue the hearing or close the hearing and issue a decision within 45 days. The decision could be different than the decision issued prior to the reconsideration. If the application is withdrawn, then a decision is not needed.

 

Joan Lenes posed a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the DRB and requested the chairman step down from the vote on the project. In the fight for economic development, Ms. Lenes urged looking at the benefits of the project and working out the details.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, pointed out everyone on the DRB has worked hard and been fair and unbiased which is the way to approach applications. To remove the chairman in a witch hunt is not the way to handle the matter at hand. Having multiple opinions on the board results in the best conclusions. Ms. Webster spoke against the chairman resigning.

 

Ginny Ockert, Shelburne resident, suggested GMDG go through the list of conditions with the DRB to see what can be eliminated. Focus on the road access issue which the DRB can waive. Charlie Brush recalled the traffic experts testified on the road configuration and the DRB was asked if the configuration was acceptable back in January. It was thought the matter was settled, but then the condition requiring an entrance north of the current ingress was drafted which was quite a surprise. Mr. Brush said he felt betrayed by the board, and at this point it makes no sense to move forward with the project. Dick Elkins explained he simply wanted the entrances lined up on Route 7 regardless of the location. When the north entrance was lined up the matter was resolved. Until there was a public hearing on the reconsideration it was not possible to speak to the matter. Mr. Elkins said he is unhappy with what has happened with the application.

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

None.

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m.