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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Matt Callaghan, Anne Birkett, Robert Birkett, Chris Kapsalis, Terry Kennaugh, Gregg Beldock, David Webster, Sean Folley, Joel Baird (Burlington Free Press), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

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

·        Design Review, Exterior Renovations, 245 Harbor Road, Robert and Anne Birkett (DR10-08)

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

Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM.

 

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.

 

Matt Callaghan appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Callaghan reported the state division of fire safety requires a second set of egress stairs from the second floor of the building. The covered stairway will be pressure treated. The vinyl siding will match the house. HP&DRC reviewed and approved what was proposed. Having the stairs off the back of the house would require removal of windows and the parking lot would intrude. The proposed location requires the least amount of room and the stairwell is not visible from the front side of the house due to the cedar trees.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/2/10.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Robert and Anne Birkett appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Birkett said the elevated ranch house which was recently purchased has an existing porch off the dining room.  The proposal is for an open deck off the right side of the dining room accessed through sliding doors with stairs leading down to a deck at ground level. Windows will be added to the guest bedroom in the lower level of the house. The split rail fence around the back yard will be lined with a metal fence coated with green vinyl to keep the dog in the yard. The front stairs will be rebuilt to standard. The existing stone and masonry stairs are falling apart and not safe. The chimney is being re-faced for aesthetics, not safety.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/2/10. David Conard asked if there are any ramifications of the new front stairs encroaching farther into the setback than the existing stairs. Dean Pierce explained the bylaws speak to steps not being included in the measurement of the setback (diminimus impact). Mr. Birkett said there is a safety issue with the existing steps. The location cannot be changed because there are windows on either side of the stairs.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application. David Conard recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Beldock gave a brief history of screening the structural steel beams which turned out to be a bad idea. The screening traps snow and is rusted and unattractive. Some portions have fallen presenting a safety hazard. Suggestion was made to remove the screening and the Selectboard did not object. The original design of the building’s structural elements speaks to the building use from the Parthenon onward, said Mr. Beldock, adding the building is an athletic events building. The free span system is quite a feat. In early conversations there was a question about the steel onto itself creating a separate structure or the building being a two-story structure. The resolution was to mask the structural elements of the building with screening. There was not public discussion of the screening which was from concern that a handful of people might be offended by the structure.

 

There was continued discussion of the screening. Peter Gibbs asked if there was mention of other ways to screen the iron joists, such as vegetation. Mr. Beldock said there was much discussion behind closed doors. Eventually there was a court order issued. The steel had to be removed. Mr. Gibbs asked if the screening deteriorated because it was not maintained or installed properly. Mr. Beldock said the screening was not designed by an architect or planning commission, but was designed in closed session at a Selectboard meeting, resulting in the June 27, 2005 stipulation (#3) between Shelburne and Fieldhouse for powder coated white aluminum screening or other material approved by the town. There were to be flags hanging from the steel like in a stadium, but someone objected to that idea as well, said Mr. Beldock. The decision on the screening was rendered by the court. The parties involved were the Selectboard and Fieldhouse. The zoning board was usurped. The decision by Environmental Court is de facto. Prior decision by the zoning board is irrelevant. Kay Kraushaar interjected the court responded to the decision by the zoning board and the response was the screening should be modified. Gregg Beldock clarified the court filed stipulations submitted to them by the Selectboard. The agreement was between the town and the applicant. Dean Pierce pointed out the agreement is the stipulated judgment.  The matter did not go to court. The document says there shall be screening of a certain type.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked if the DRB can remove the stipulation requiring the impact of the external girders be concealed. Dean Pierce said his understanding is the DRB determines if the screening complies with the bylaws. Gregg Beldock said the condition was applied by the Selectboard and the Selectboard agreed to remove the condition, but wanted the DRB to review the matter. Ms. Rosenblum Palmer observed it appears the town allowed the super-structure with the condition of screening, but the screening now looks awful. The town can either require the building be removed or just the screening.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if other screening material was recommended (other than powdered aluminum). Gregg Beldock described the limitations of the powdered aluminum screening (does not adhere to steel). Mr. Beldock recalled Ms. Kraushaar voted against the application in 2004 and asked that she recuse herself now due to predisposition to her decision. Ms. Kraushaar refused, explaining the predisposition is the findings and notes, not a personal opinion.

 

Peter Gibbs observed if there was not a problem with the original screening the matter would not be before the DRB. Mr. Gibbs asked if there is a better material or way to screen the girders. Mr. Beldock said he is not volunteering to put anything else on the building nor suggesting any other screening. Every time the screening is painted besides costing thousands of dollars the paint ends up on cars in the adjacent lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB previously received a written staff report on the application, dated May 5, 2010. There was discussion of doing a site visit to see if there are other options to answer the conditional use criteria.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chris Kapsalis, Shelburne resident, stated unless there are zoning laws that require the screening, the owner should be allowed to remove it. Peter Gibbs explained the application is for a conditional use and there is criteria related to the character of the area and aesthetics of the historic village that must be considered. In addition there is a stipulated agreement. Gregg Beldock said the white screening brings attention to the building. The building structure and color itself brings less attention so there is less impact on the neighborhood.

 

David Webster, Shelburne resident, stated nothing has changed since the application: there was and still is concern to screen the superstructure from the village-scape.

 

Terry Kennaugh, Shelburne resident, expressed preference for the screening and that the screening be maintained. The screening hides the girders from view. Girders do not necessarily mean the building is an athletic facility, said Mr. Kennaugh. The building could be an industrial facility with girders. Mr. Kennaugh suggested additional research into what would work for screening on the building. Also, the outdoor lighting was supposed to meet certain guidelines and it does not. Peter Gibbs said enforcement of zoning violations is handled by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The DRB needs to determine the appropriate type of screening and if screening is called for on the building. Gregg Beldock stated screening the steel girders was not a condition of the zoning board, but part of the settlement agreement. Dean Pierce recalled the zoning board denied the expansion because the steel girders were not screened from view. Mr. Beldock observed how the building looks after driving in is not as important as the effect on the view from the historic district of town. Mr. Beldock reiterated there is no offer to do any other screening.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

David Conard returned to the DRB.

 

The DRB mentioned areas needing further discussion and refinement to include:

David Conard noted the decision by the DRB must be based on testimony presented at the DRB hearings and evidence submitted to the DRB publicly. Dean Pierce said town committees are committees appointed by the Selectboard to advise decision makers in the town on various issues. If the Paths Committee, for example, has an issue the DRB should know, then the committee should send a representative to the DRB meeting so the applicant and the public can hear the issue and make comment. David Conard suggested a positive recommendation does not require attendance, but with a negative recommendation or if there are any objections then a representative should attend and explain. An applicant should not have an application denied based on a letter when there was no opportunity to respond. Anna Rosenblum Palmer said she wants to attend committee meetings to see how they arrived at their decisions. Mr. Conard advised attendance at the committee meeting must be disclosed and any decision on an application must be based on testimony given at the DRB meeting. It was mentioned that committees of the town are thought in a way to be an extension of staff. Mr. Gibbs asked if it is a problem for the DRB to ask staff what was discussed at a design review committee meeting, for example. Mr. Conard said this is not a problem because staff is under oath and can be cross-examined by the applicant. Dean Pierce cautioned to be mindful the Design Review Committee acts under a specific part of the statute and may be able to function differently. The DRB makes decisions based on written recommendations from the committee. In other towns the design review committee meets just before the development review board meeting and that is how the information is known.  Mark Sammut suggested the DRB receive copies of minutes or committee staff reports. Dean Pierce said the minutes may not necessarily be available. David Conard said having staff be ex officio members of the committee is one solution for the communication of information.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer said deliberative session is a tool available to the DRB, but the written record produced following deliberative session does not recreate the logic of the discussion that took place. More transparency is needed so the public knows what has transpired.

 

Chris Kapsalis and Sean Folley, Shelburne residents, presented suggested changes to the DRB Rules of Procedure. The changes include use of deliberative session being rare and mostly confined to consult with legal counsel, showing the vote of each member on each item deliberated, conditions explicitly and concisely stating the underlying findings of fact that support the decision, and discussion of the decision at the next regular meeting following the decision. The applicant should have the opportunity to see what is happening as each question is weighed. The concept is for more transparency and reduced use of deliberative session.  Peter Gibbs asked for clarification that the request is conditions requiring a row of trees, for example, need to be cross-referenced to a finding of fact. Mr. Folley confirmed cross reference to a finding or zoning ordinance is suggested. David Conard suggested only conditions that are not acceptable to the applicant be cross-referenced. There are standard (boiler plate) conditions and then unique conditions to an application. The unique conditions should be explained. Sean Folley stressed how the decision is linked to findings needs to be shown. Injecting personal preference into conditions should be avoided. Conditions should demonstrate application of the zoning ordinance and findings. The public wants to understand the decision and reference to specific bylaws and findings. Mr. Kapsalis said there is concern about conditions requiring deliberation by the DRB. Sean Folley summarized the broad range of opinion needs to be distilled to a condition and the condition linked to a specific bylaw or finding.

 

Joel Baird, Burlington Free Press, stated the meeting minutes are a good historical record of a decision by the board.

 

David Conard suggested the following amendments to the language in the Rules of Procedure and Conflict of Interest Policy:

Ø      Section VIII – Public Hearings and Order of Business, Subsection C: add “on an item by item basis” to the sentence about disclosure of conflicts of interest.

Ø      Section VIII, Subsection R – replace “…vote to enter deliberative session” with “…if the evidence is closed the DRB is deemed to be in deliberative session.”

Ø      Section XII – Decisions, introductory paragraph, 2^nd sentence – insert “at a public meeting” between the words “are not open” and “to the public”.

Ø      Section XII, Subsection G – rewrite to read: “The board shall issue a written decision within 45 days of the final public hearing. If the decision is made in deliberative session, the written decision shall identify board members’ votes. If the written decision either (a) is a denial of the application, or (b) contains conditions other than those proposed by the applicant or specifically authorized by 24VSA4464(b), the decision should contain a concise reference to the statutory or regulatory basis to the denial or condition.”

Ø      Section XIII – DRB Staff, Subsection E – rewrite to read: “provide the DRB with copies of all materials submitted to staff in connection with pending applications and staff notes which shall include a description of any staff concerns about the completeness of applications or their compliance with statutes and ordinances, and motion(s) for the Board’s possible actions;”

 

Dean Pierce commented it is unworkable to separately state individual positions by board members on conditions. The board can explain the conditions and their basis as a whole. The board speaks as a whole with a unified voice. What an individual board member thinks about an individual condition does not matter. If an application receives four votes, then there is a decision. Anna Rosenblum Palmer added at least four members need to decide on an application either way even though all the members may not like the conditions.

 

Sean Folley suggested presenting the decision on an application in a matrix showing the votes (yes, no, abstain), the conditions and referenced findings of fact, what transpired in deliberative session, and announcement that response to what was discussed in deliberative session can be given at the next meeting. Mark Sammut clarified the request includes tying conditions to the applicable ordinance or statute. Mr. Folley and Mr. Kapsalis confirmed this is the suggestion.

 

Joel Baird mentioned dissenting decisions written by members of the Supreme Court being thorough and informative, and suggested any move in this direction will make the process more transparent. Mr. Baird said he would welcome any move to be more transparent. Peter Gibbs reiterated the DRB speaks as one voice. The board is not charged with writing dissenting opinions. Mr. Sammut added the decision is the board as a singular body. In deliberative session there is discussion of how to craft conditions to approve a project. A decision must be issued within 45 days of closing the hearing so there are time constraints on the board. Sean Folley interjected there is desire and frustration of the public being shut out of the process when there is so much at stake. David Conard suggested to deal with the time constraint the board could recess the hearing rather than close the hearing and then issue a proposed decision for comment though the applicant may object to the time required and potential delay of their project. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested the board could state where it stands on issues before making a decision. There was mention of crafting findings for decisions. Findings of fact are part of the written decision on an application. There was mention of “on the record review” for the town. With on-the-record-review, testimony is based on the record created, not de novo, and there is determination of party status which limits who can participate.

 

The DRB will continue to review the rules and procedures at a future meeting. Peter Gibbs commented the town boards do a great job. Sean Folley agreed, thanking all the volunteers for their service and devotion of time to the town.

 

Postponed.

 

There can be further discussion at the training session of transparency by boards, deliberative session, interaction between town committees, ex parte communication, phased review, use of alternate members, and other topics. Staff will poll other towns for their current ‘hot topic’ issues.

 

Quasi-judicial means the board must ensure an application adheres to the ordinance regardless of whether the board is in favor of the application or not. Executive session has a narrower rationale than deliberative session. Reasons to enter executive session include personnel matters, legal issues, and/or contract negotiations.

 

Terry Kennaugh asked if there is any follow up by the town to ensure conditions are met. Mark Sammut stated ‘as-built’ drawings are required from an applicant’s engineer. David Conard explained if there is a clear violation the town is obligated to enforce the permit and the ordinances. The matter is more difficult when determination of a violation is subjective.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 PM.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Stuart Bennett, Greg Rabideau, Don Helgesen, Gerry Guillemette, Bernie Guillemette, Gregg Beldock, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Road Frontage Access, Lot Access off Route 116, Lot at 53 Pond Road, Mike Anderson (RFA10-01)

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

·        Design Review, Fence, 5247 Shelburne Road, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC (DR10-09)

·        Final Plan, R-PUD, 16 Multifamily Units, 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC (SUB05-09R3)

In the absence of Chairman Gibbs, Mark Sammut called the meeting to order at 7 PM.

 

David Conard announced he will recuse himself from the applications for the Fieldhouse and Catamount (multifamily units). Mr. Conard noted he represented Stuart Bennett in an unrelated matter, but does not feel this will influence his decision on the fence application involving Mr. Bennett.

 

Claude LaPierre announced he will recuse himself from the Anderson application. Mr. LaPierre volunteered to recuse himself from the Fieldhouse application as well since he was not involved in the discussion of the matter or the site visit. There was discussion of closing the hearing and having Mr. LaPierre and Chairman Gibbs review the tape to provide input on the decision.

 

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.

 

Claude LaPierre recused himself. Mark Sammut noted Mike Anderson requested the application be continued to the next available date. A letter was received from the Auclair’s attorney requesting a continuance because his client cannot attend the meeting.

 

 

David Conard and Claude LaPierre recused themselves. Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There were no comments from the applicant.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated June 9, 2010 for the June 16, 2010 meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Don Helgesen, tenant at 166 Athletic Drive and major shareholder of Shelburne Health and Fitness spoke in support of removing the screening which is unsightly and dangerous.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident and former zoning board member, recalled the proposal to erect the superstructure was unanimously denied by the zoning board. Mitigation by the Selectboard resulted in the screening of what is now assumed to be rusty steel “I” beams. The material was supposed to be rust proof. Anna Rosenblum Palmer pointed out the use of powder coated aluminum or other material was approved by the town officials, and the Town Manager approved the material that was used. Presently the beams are not rusted (the beams are painted white). The screening is rusted. Ms. Webster suggested the color of paint be something other than white to avoid standing out so much. The building was unobtrusive before and now it is an eyesore, opined Ms. Webster. Ms. Webster asked John Adams to email the court decision to her.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about researching screening that would work. Gregg Beldock stated different screening is not under consideration. Mr. Beldock added Ms. Webster was not privy to the discussions of the Selectboard. The screening was an attempt to make the building look better. There have been complaints and concern from clients of tenants about the screening falling down and causing injury. It is subjective commentary about being an eyesore, stated Mr. Beldock. It was noted the DRB has all the material of public record pertaining to the case.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The DRB will render a decision within 45 days.

 

Claude LaPierre and David Conard returned to the DRB.

 

Greg Rabideau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There were no comments from the applicant.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo, dated 6/10/10, on the application. John Adams noted the Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee (SHP&DRC) approved the fence and gate without conditions.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Bennett, Shelburne resident, noted there is an agreement about maintaining the vegetation between the properties. Mr. Bennett requested the agreement be part of the permit.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

David Conard recused himself. Greg Rabideau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Rabideau reported the fence issue has been settled and legal documents for the easement through the adjacent property for fire access have been submitted. Comments from the Fire Chief will be addressed. Annual plantings can be done around the fire hydrant rather than perennials to avoid the flowers being destroyed when the hydrant is flushed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report and a staff memo on the application, dated 6/16/10. John Adams noted the applicant feels a lighting plan is not required because lights are not being added. Existing lights are being replaced with energy compliant fixtures. Staff suggested the lighting can be approved without a lighting plan based on the fixture(s) submitted.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Bennett submitted a copy of the agreement with Larry Williams for the maintenance of vegetation between the properties and asked that the agreement be incorporated as a condition of the permit. The agreement also covers the enclosure of the stairwell, the fence on the applicant’s side of the common boundary, and corner fence posts being in concrete for tension on the fence. Per the agreement vegetation will be allowed to grow between the properties, though on the applicant’s side the vegetation will begin five feet from the building. Mr. Bennett suggested Item #4 in the agreement (Vegetation along Common Boundary between Bennett Lot and Catamount Lots) be substantively included as a condition of the permit. Still at issue, continued Mr. Bennett, is the maintenance of the storm water drain (rip-rap lined ditch to the south of the driveway). With the previous proposal for condominiums Catamount was to maintain the storm water system and the swale, but Larry Williams indicated he does not want to continue the agreement with the present application, however, the situation is the same except now the application is for apartment units rather than condominium units.

 

Greg Rabideau expressed concern about interjecting a private agreement between parties into the public record for the application. Mr. Rabideau stated his client (Catamount) instructed him to defend against any requirement to maintain private property. It is reasonable to maintain the area during the construction phase though. There was further discussion of the storm water drainage. Mr. Bennett stated the area is a ‘no man’s land’ and VTrans comes in only when there is a drastic problem with drainage. The town’s review process talks about drainage and storm water so the issue can be considered with the application. There is common knowledge that the storm system will fail again, stated Mr. Bennett, recalling previous flooding in his basement from storm water overflow. Mr. Bennett stated the provision in the agreement regarding storm water if made part of the permit will ensure the system will be maintained. Greg Rabideau pointed out the culvert is in the right-of-way, and added the previous application (condominiums) had more direct impact on Mr. Bennett’s property and Larry Williams felt compelled to act due to time constraints on the permit (hence the agreement). Mr. Rabideau questioned the logic by which Catamount must maintain beyond construction the culvert which is in the right-of-way. The culvert relates to the driveway for the law offices. Mark Sammut pointed out the right-of-way is mowed by the property owner. Mr. Rabideau stated most all property owners typically mow to the road.  Mr. Rabideau objected to Mr. Bennett enlisting the town as an ally in a private agreement and urged the DRB to make a decision on the application. Mr. Bennett can appeal if desired. Mark Sammut noted everyone benefits from the drainage structure and mentioned resolving the matter by having joint responsibility.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, stated VTrans indicated the person with the driveway is responsible for maintenance because it is a “privilege to have the driveway” according to VTrans. VTrans insists the ditch remains.  Ms. Webster noted changing the grading in front of Shelburne Inn exacerbated the drainage problem to residences along the road because water no longer flows toward the parking lot.

 

John Adams advised that the DRB look at the proposal and the regulations to see if conditions are needed to meet town regulations and the subdivision bylaws (additional storm water impacts mitigated on-site or off site). Anna Rosenblum Palmer noted site changes are not being proposed with the current application. Mark Sammut added the only change is the sidewalk being extended which the DRB requested be done. Mr. Adams clarified the agreement proposed by Mr. Bennett contains some good suggestions, such as allowing vegetation to grow between the properties, but there are other aspects with which the town should not be involved, such as damage to the stone wall. Stuart Bennett stated the agreement and swale were part of the previous approval and should be upheld with the current application. Mr. Bennett said there was two feet of water in his basement from the last storm. When the manhole was raised south of the driveway the water flowed into the basements of the houses. Mark Sammut reiterated the culvert is adjacent to the Bennett property so the maintenance should be a joint effort. Stuart Bennett agreed, adding the matter was fixed once and there is no reason for that not to prevail. Anna Rosenblum Palmer stressed the permit application before the DRB does not add impact to storm water run off, and it appears the manhole change by the town created the flooding. Stuart Bennett stated the water comes from upstream. Mr. Bennett said he is trying to avoid an issue that will tangle up the application since there was an agreement on the matter 18 months ago. Mark Sammut said the ditch is in the state right-of-way and the project has a state storm water permit. Greg Rabideau pointed out there have been multiple hearings and the building is existing. The proposal will stabilize the building. The units will be affordable (more so than the condominiums). Over time all ditches need to be maintained, but the ditch is in the state right-of-way. It is not unreasonable to ask for a shared endeavor, but the agreement does not state this. The physical conditions are existing and not part of the application. It is not in the town’s interest to intervene in a civil matter, said Mr. Rabideau, stressing his objection to using the permit process to mandate a neighbor to maintain the culvert. Mr. Bennett can maintain the ditch himself. The DRB should not be asked to make the agreement part of the permit conditions.

 

Mark Sammut again stated the matter should be worked out between the neighbors. John Adams pointed out if the storm water system is not constructed as it should have been then that is a compliance issue. If the proposal does not comply with storm water regulations because it generates adverse impacts then conditions can be applied to mitigate run off on-site or off site with the consent of the property owner. Stuart Bennett apologized for bringing the issue up so late in the process, but thought as of February 23, 2006 the matter was settled. Greg Rabideau pointed out nothing is preventing Mr. Bennett from entering into another agreement with Larry Williams. Mr. Rabideau requested the DRB act on the application under review.

 

Kay Kraushaar recalled the approval for condominiums was appealed. Stuart Bennett said the appeal was because there were to be terraces and balconies on the condominiums, and due to the timeframe an agreement was worked out privately with Larry Williams. There was mention of the drainage situation occurring post-permit. Stuart Bennett confirmed the site was built as the developer said it would be and now maintenance of the drainage system should be done as agreed. Anna Rosenblum Palmer interjected the maintenance issue has nothing to do with the application before the DRB. Stuart Bennett rebutted the issue came up with the condominium project and was not resolved so a private agreement was drafted. Mr. Bennett said he is seeking to preserve the agreement.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Anna Rosenblum Palmer made a motion to direct staff to write a decision approving SUB05-09R3 Final Plan application and DR10-09 Design Review application with the following conditions:

1.       All original conditions of approval unaffected by the amendment shall remain unmodified.

2.      All updated mylar of the PUD shall be recorded in the Shelburne Land Records within 180 days of the approval.

3.      Any application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the approved development shall include three sets of as-built plans showing the development as actually constructed, and the as-built plans shall include all revisions, adjustments, modifications and amendments to the originally approved site plan as well as being drawn to the same scale and with the same accuracy as the original site plan drawings, and further, where the site plan specifies quantities or dimensions the as-built drawings shall verify those specifications.

4.      Appropriate sprinklering/fire stopping measures shall be taken and the structure shall conform to the State of Vermont Fire and Building Safety codes as required by the State Department of Public Safety, and the locating of any necessary Fire Department connection (4” stortz) shall be agreed to by the Fire Chief before construction begins.

5.      The emergency egress lane onto Shelburne Road (north of the Shelburne Inn) shall be maintained throughout the year (kept free of snow) and any parking that would block the egress shall be prohibited and appropriate signage shall be installed (‘green pavers’ for the egress are strongly encouraged and shall not require any additional board approval).

6.      Individual unit numbers shall be visible from the parking area and found acceptable to the Shelburne Fire Chief prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

7.      Changes to the landscaping plan necessary for fire and rescue purposes may be required by the Shelburne Fire Chief and Planning and Zoning staff as a condition of any zoning permit, and changes may include the removal of flowers around the hydrant area and the required trimming of existing vegetation encroaching on the emergency egress or preventing adequate ladder access to the rear of the building.

8.      There shall be compliance to Item #4 in the agreement submitted by Stuart Bennett on 6/16/10 regarding maintenance of vegetation along the common boundary between the Bennett lot and the Catamount lots.

9.      At the end of construction, Catamount shall do final maintenance and clean out of the culvert and swale to match the condition of best working order as in 2006 (the neighbors shall work out how to best maintain the culvert to be in the best working order).

 

The motion did not have a second. Kay Kraushaar suggested holding a brief deliberative session to review the materials received and ensure nothing is missed, and also to discuss waiving the lighting plan. Anna Rosenblum Palmer withdrew the motion.

 

 

The DRB will render a decision within 45 days.

 

Postponed.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.