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.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Chuck Dunham, David and Julie Hollenbeck, Terry Kennaugh.

·        Design Review, Remove Window and Door, 5397 Shelburne Road, Shelburne United Methodist Church (DR10-05)

·        Final Plan Amendment, Expand Building Envelope, 823 Shelburne-Hinesburg Road, Hollenbeck (SUB03-04R4)

·        Conditional Use Amendment, Remove Screening on Roof, 166 Athletic Drive, Fieldhouse, LLC (CU04-23R1)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM. Announcement was made that Claude LaPierre will recuse himself from the Hollenbeck application.

 

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.

 

Chuck Dunham appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Dunham explained the window between the brick portion of the house and the door on the north elevation will be removed. Interior renovations are changing the inside room into a laundry room with the washer, dryer and cabinets in the area of the window. On the east elevation the existing door is no longer needed and will be covered with clapboards to match the house per the suggestion of the Shelburne Design Review Committee. The steps will also be removed. The room inside the house previously accessed by the door is being converted to a master bedroom and closet space.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/5/10.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

David and Julie Hollenbeck appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

David Hollenbeck explained the proposal to expand the building envelope on the north side of the house for an in-ground pool and patio area around the pool.

 

Peter Gibbs mentioned there is a history of changes to the building envelope on the lot (prior to ownership by the Hollenbecks). The building envelope was adjusted because the house was not located in the correct envelope. John Adams further explained essentially the geometry of the building envelope was shifted, but the lot size remained unchanged. Mr. Gibbs said he asked staff to research the record on the subdivision and provide information to the DRB. The original subdivision development had a larger building envelope that was reduced, but the reason why this was done is not clear. The current application appears to return the building envelope to the size originally proposed. Mr. Gibbs asked about a walking trail that was mentioned in the record. John Adams said it is not certain the path was included in the final approval, but the path is not on the Hollenbeck lot.

 

Kay Kraushaar stated reference to Lot #7 in the record shows a request to provide more information on the lot and screening. John Adams stated the proposal by the Hollenbecks does not extend into the location of the waste water disposal system and there was a permit condition that the trees are to remain in place. Mr. Hollenbeck assured no trees or shrubs will be removed. The area where the pool will be located is grass.  Ms. Kraushaar asked if there is any way the additional acreage in the building envelope can be taken off in another place so the building envelope can remain the same size. Mr. Hollenbeck stated that is fine, but there is not much room around the house and there is no intention to build anything further. The area where there is more space is by the circular driveway. There is a parking area in front of the garage on the west side. The remainder of space is about 15’ around the house. The patio for the pool will be within the building envelope, but close to the edge of the existing new building envelope. Following further discussion it was ascertained the pool will be located between the septic tank location and the leach field. Peter Gibbs rephrased Ms. Kraushaar’s suggestion to consider adjusting the building envelope to end up with the same area so additional structures cannot be built. Mr. Hollenbeck pointed out another structure is not possible due to the location of the circular driveway.  Mark Sammut observed the location of the septic tank, force main, and proximity to the mount system precludes any building in the area.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/5/10. John Adams reported a neighbor to the Hollenbecks requested a copy of the plans which were forwarded.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the DRB.

 

Peter Gibbs announced prior to the meeting the applicant requested the application be continued to May 19, 2010.

 

 

Postponed.

 

Dick Elkins said it has been a privilege to serve with current and past members of the DRB. The company has been enjoyable. Kay Kraushaar echoed the comments.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 PM.

 

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Chris Kapsalis, Stewart Bennett, Peg Rosenau, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Paul Bohne, Erik Hoekstra, Greg Rabideau, Larry Williams, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Emergency Egress Stairway, 233 Falls Road, Wind Ridge Properties, LLC (DR10-07)

·        Conditional Use Amendment, Remove Screening on Roof, 166 Athletic Drive, Fieldhouse, LLC (CU04-23R1)

·        Design Review & Preliminary Plan, Modify Approved Redevelopment PUD, 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC (DR10-06\SUB05-09R3)

·        Site Plan Amendment, Substitute Gravel Path for Sidewalk, North Side Harbor Road, Town of Shelburne (SUB04-06R6)

John Adams opened the meeting at 7 PM.  David Conard was welcomed as the newly appointed member of the DRB. Reappointment of Peter Gibbs and Kay Kraushaar was also recognized.

 

MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to nominate Peter Gibbs as Chairman of the Shelburne Development Review Board. There were no other nominations. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried. Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of Chairman.

 

MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by David Conard, to nominate Mark Sammut as Vice Chairman of the Shelburne Development Review Board. There were no other nominations. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried. Mark Sammut is Vice Chairman.

 

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.

 

The application was continued until 6/2/10 at the request of the applicant.

 

 

Erik Hoekstra, Greg Rabideau, and Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application. David Conard recused himself. Mr. Conard explained he represents the Vergennes Restaurant Group which operates the Bearded Frog at the Shelburne Inn.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Erik Hoekstra reported the bike rack and connector sidewalk from the motel sidewalk to the sidewalk on Route 7 have been incorporated into the plans. Handicap parking spaces (three for the entire R-PUD) have been designated. The diamond patterned appliqué on the building has been eliminated. There is now straight horizontal rail with a hardy product with deep reveal to provide a new shadow line. Roof penetrations and plumbing vents have been added to the plans. Rain diverters are over the top of the doorways. Penetrations on the rear elevation where the exhaust for the heaters will be have also been added. The elevator tower remains the same. At the far northwest corner of the building the stairs are enclosed and a window added for natural light. The window will match the other windows in the building. Lighting details have been added to the plans. A copy of the proposed lease will be submitted with the Final Plan application. Terms in the lease will restrict access to the area behind the building and restrict certain window treatments (sheets and such). According to RSG who did the traffic study in 2005 for 14 units in the building, two additional apartments is a negligible impact and will not have an adverse impact on traffic or circulation.

 

Larry Williams mentioned the concern by the adjacent property owner, Stewart Bennett, about impact to his property by more activity on the site. Mr. Williams said a five foot high welded wire fence set on top of a foot high stonewall is proposed to be installed on the property line to block off the area. There is an existing mature cedar hedge and smaller maple trees along the property line for screening. The fence will be weaved between the two rows of trees. There was mutual agreement, continued Mr. Williams, to allow the overhanging branches to remain except in the five foot area next to the building. It would be prudent to have a gate on either end of the building for emergency access. The stairwells will be enclosed. A site plan with the fence included was submitted.  Regarding storm water, Mr. Williams said there is subsurface piping in the parking lot and water drains to a collection area then into the ditch along Route 7. The drainage was installed per the direction of the state. The culvert under Gwen Webster’s driveway is nearly plugged, said Mr. Williams, and if this were cleaned out the water would likely drain better. Regarding parking, 59 parking spaces were shown for the initial proposal of eight condominium units (a waiver of 21 parking spaces or 26% was received from the required 80 spaces). The more recent proposal for the site required 96 parking spaces and 71 spaces are shown on the plan. A waiver of 25 spaces (26%) was requested. There is a verbal agreement (soon to be followed with a written agreement) with Marv and Sue Thomas for use of their driveway for access so the parking area can be finished which will add nine parking spaces making 80 spaces on the site (96 spaces are needed for the R-PUD so a waiver of 16 spaces is needed). There is more parking capacity with the current proposal than the original plan which showed 59 spaces of which 16 were tandem (one space in the garage and one space in the single car driveway).

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about visibility of the elevator. The applicant indicated the elevator cannot be seen from Route 7, but can be seen from the Bennett side of the property though the cedars provide much screening. The elevator is an accessibility requirement. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer asked if the brick pillars are flush with the balcony. The applicant confirmed this.

 

Mark Sammut asked about the bike rack. Larry Williams reviewed the locations of the inverted “u” bike racks, noting the Design Review Committee wanted a bike rack in the covered stairwell.

 

Kay Kraushaar mentioned the tiny window on the east elevation. The applicant noted the window is existing.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/19/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There was discussion of storm water run off from the site. Gwen Webster, neighbor, said the run off from storms has become worse since the front area by the Inn has been raised. David Webster said the ditches are not large enough to accommodate the overflow of water from the parking lot. There was discussion of cleaning out the culverts on Route 7. Town Manager, Paul Bohne, said the state does not clean out culverts though they will thaw out frozen culverts to keep the water flowing. Stewart Bennett, neighbor, said the manhole north of the sidewalk extension was at grade and then raised by the town about four inches. As a result water run off now goes into the basements of the nearby houses.

 

Stewart Bennett mentioned the fence that is proposed and agreed with the concept, but wanted to discuss the material. Double hung windows on the building are good, said Mr. Bennett. Regarding the lease, the building owner must enforce the terms. To enforce behavior with a lease is a different situation. Mr. Bennett explained that making particular terms of the lease part of a permit condition will give the building owner more leverage for enforcement. Also, the fence should be part of the permit as opposed to a condition of occupancy. Larry Williams interjected there is a noise ordinance in town and the fence and wall were proposed to avoid any conflicts in the future. The area behind the building is not inviting. Shelburne Design Review Committee approved the fence in concept. Anna Rosenblum Palmer observed the applicant has done much to appease a neighbor who moved to a property that is next to a lot with a motel on it. David Webster noted the building was not in compliance when it was built.

 

There was discussion of the lights and distribution of illumination. The applicant will provide further details at Final Plan review.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

David Conard returned to the DRB.

 

Shelburne Town Manager, Paul Bohne, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bohne gave background information on the gravel path and the Conditional Use Determination (CUD) for the path through the open field. The cost of putting in the gravel path and fence through the designated area which involved wetlands was $37,000. As well the gravel path would be very close to the houses in McCabe Circle. The town asked the Agency of Natural Resources if it would be possible to get a permit for a sidewalk along Harbor Road instead. A CUD was granted and the sidewalk was built. There is a well used gravel path around the ball field that connects to existing sidewalk on Harbor Road. The request before the DRB is to amend the site plan to eliminate the gravel path through the field.

 

There was discussion of a path from Harbor Road to the fields beyond the field house. Mr. Bohne stated there is a path next to Athletic Drive, but frequently cars park on the path. David Conard asked if the path construction was pursuant to the permit condition and if the parking problem could be solved with temporary curbing. Mr. Bohne said the path was built per the permit and discussions could be undertaken with the owner of the field house. Lot 3 is owned by Fieldhouse, LLC. Lot 1 is town property. Lot 1 has three fields on it. The town owns Athletic Drive up to a point and then the ownership changes (most recently the owner was Pizzagalli). There are maintenance issues between the town and Fieldhouse, LLC.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/19/10. There was further discussion of cars parking on the path. Paul Bohne noted the Paths Committee would like to pave the gravel path (8’ wide) and have the path go up the field house side of the open space and connect at the entrance to the field house then go to the fields beyond the facility. There is a steep slope though. Anna Rosenblum Palmer noted the concern of mixing pedestrians and bikes with cars by the field house can be addressed by eliminating the parking on the path. Kay Kraushaar agreed, adding for maximum safety there needs to be a formal delineation between the parking and the path. Mr. Bohne noted the original plan showed a separate path to the parking. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested a condition of approval that the town work with Fieldhouse, LLC for construction of curbing or using natural materials such as large boulders to prevent cars from parking on the path along the west side of Athletic Drive. Paul Bohne suggested saying “a reasonable separation between the path and parking”. David Conard pointed out if the approved site plan shows a path separated from the road then the existing situation is a matter of enforcement. The DRB cannot put conditions on property that is not owned by the applicant. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked if Fieldhouse, LLC should have been a co-applicant. Mr. Bohne said the town purchased the property and the request before the DRB involves that property. In order to do what is being suggested with the path would require Fieldhouse, LLC being a co-applicant. John Adams said it is staff’s opinion that the farthest the DRB can go is to encourage the applicant to work with the property owner on resolution of the matter. The town can enforce the approved plan.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Peg Rosenau, president of Shelburne Meadows (formerly McCabe Circle), said the field is dense with vegetation which does not invite walking. The area is very wet as well. People typically park at the ball fields or the field house. The gravel path connecting to the sidewalk is adequate. Paul Bohne noted most people travel from the baseball fields to the convenience store on the corner of Harbor Road, rather than the field house. School children go from the school to the field house using the sidewalk. What is there now works very well.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

The DRB will review/amend the DRB Rules and Procedures at the June 2, 2010 meeting.

 

Peter Gibbs will contact Bob Roesler to set a date for a work session with the DRB and Selectboard to discuss the responsibilities of the boards and how to better work together.

 

Peter Gibbs will contact Dick Elkins about a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the regulations and any other issues.

 

Alternates to the DRB will be appointed by the Selectboard. How the alternates will serve in order to be up to speed when attending a meeting needs to be discussed.

 

Mr. Kapsalis is requesting changes to the 3/24/10 minutes. The matter will be added to a future agenda and Peter Gibbs will clarify the intention of his comments made at the 3/24/10 meeting.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM.