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

ALTERNATE PRESENT:    Laurie Smith.

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Maureen O’Brien, Becky Ramsey, Susan O’Brien, Robert Van Kleeck, Josie Palmer Leavitt, Scott Homsted, Roger Dickinson, Joseph Adams, Kathleen O’Brien, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Replace Freestanding Sign, 15 Falls Road, Jennifer Blanchard (DR10-14)

·        Final PRD Amendment, Relocate Driveway on Lot 2, Sugarwoods, Irish Hill Road/Spear Street, O’Brien Sugarwoods, LLC (SUB06-04R2)

·        Traffic Analysis Results, Rivercrest, Irish Hill Road/Thompson Road, O’Brien Rivercrest, LLC (SUB01-07

·        Boundary Line Adjustment, 718 Barstow Road & 880 Barstow Road, Maureen O’Brien and Robert Van Kleeck (SUB10-02)

·        Appeal, Notice of Violation, Lack of Permit, 185 Pine Haven Shore Road, Shelburne Senior Bay Living, LLC (A10-06)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM and announced with Laurie Smith, alternate DRB member, there is a quorum. There were no other announcements or disclosures.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated August 4, 2010. John Adams explained the proposal to replace a freestanding sign on Falls Road for a new retail business (Chez Boheme). The sign meets all the dimensional standards and was approved by the Design Review Committee without conditions. The ground lights were in place with the previous sign.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There were no comments from the applicant.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Josie Palmer Leavitt and Scott Homsted appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/4/10. John Adams stated the final plan amendments for the 16 lot subdivision include relocating a force main for Lot 12 and relocating/consolidating the driveway for Lot 2 with the access to the open space lot. The changes help minimize the amount of blasting and ledge removal that may be needed.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Scott Homsted reviewed the changes on the site plan. The driveway relocation to combine with the access to the common land will minimize the amount of blasting needed and save trees. The waste water disposal system for Lot 12 is on Lot 13. The plan was to have a force main between the lots, but this would require a lot of ledge removal so it was decided to locate the force main in the road and the disposal system in an area where there is already lots of clearing occurring.

 

Peter Gibbs observed combining the driveway with the access to the open space lot will ensure the access will remain open and maintained.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Josie Palmer Leavitt, Scott Homsted, and Roger Dickinson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/4/10. John Adams noted the date of the Planning Commission’s approval is March 24, 2005, not March 24, 2010 as erroneously listed in the staff report. Mr. Adams recalled a condition of approval for the Rivercrest development included a traffic analysis prior to issuance of a building permit for the 34^th unit to determine if a left turn lane off Irish Hill Road is warranted. The DRB may want to hear testimony from the applicant about existing conditions being adequate and safe with the current road configuration. There are 33 units under construction and 18 completed at this point in time.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Roger Dickinson stated with the construction on Route 7 it was not known what the traffic volume would be on Irish Hill Road as cars detour around Shelburne Road. The developer of Rivercrest built a right turn lane at the intersection of Irish Hill Road/Thompson Road to address the potential safety issue of cars coming down the hill and turning right onto Thompson Road. A left turn lane is the remaining issue. Conflicts in traffic at the intersection have not been observed. Traffic volume is low into and out of Thompson Road. The numbers with the current amount of construction and at full build out show the warrants for a left turn lane are not satisfied, reported Mr. Dickinson. The town has widened the road shoulder in the area possibly due to the popularity of the route with bicyclists. Vehicles using the road shoulder and passing on the right have not been observed.

 

Peter Gibbs noted the traffic analysis was done during June when there was school traffic. Mr. Gibbs asked if the right-of-way is large enough to accommodate a left turn lane in the future. Mr. Dickinson stated the right-of-way is 66’ wide (four rod road).

 

Laurie Smith asked if the developer would be responsible to install a turn lane once the property is built out and traffic volumes increase on Irish Hill Road due to drivers using Irish Hill Road and Webster Road to avoid bottlenecks on Route 7. John Adams stated the town would have to address the traffic issue, not the developer, as the cause of the traffic would not be from the development.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/4/10. John Adams noted corrections to the staff report to show existing acreage at 718 Barstow Road to be 12.01 acres and at 880 Barstow Road to be 13.01 acres. With the boundary line adjustment the lot at 718 Barstow Road will be 18.92 acres and the lot at 880 Barstow Road will be 6.10 acres. According to the applicant nothing is being changed from sketch plan review. A survey of the property was done.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Maureen O’Brien confirmed nothing is being changed form what was proposed at sketch plan. The survey is now complete. The proposal is to make an internal boundary line adjustment between two lots. Each lot has an existing dwelling. There will be no changes to the driveways to the houses and no further development is planned at this point in time.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Kathleen O’Brien asked if there will be a documented right-of-way to allow access to the family cemetery since the boundary line adjustment will cause the family cemetery to be located on private property (once the property at 880 Barstow Road is sold). Maureen O’Brien stated the boundary line adjustment is not impeding access to the burial site which can be accessed via the driveway for 718 Barstow Road. Kathleen O’Brien contended if the land is subdivided in the future (there is potential for two more lots) and a documented easement is not recorded to allow access to the burial area then access could be denied. Presently there is access through 880 Barstow Road.  Robert Van Kleeck reiterated the area can be accessed from the driveway at 718 Barstow Road. Peter Gibbs pointed out the George O’Brien Trust signed an agreement to make the boundary line adjustment. Maureen O’Brien confirmed she as trustee signed the boundary line adjustment agreement. The purpose of the adjustment is to be able to sell 880 Barstow Road and preserve the remainder of the land. With the boundary adjustment the family burial site will be on property at 718 Barstow Road (owned by Maureen O’Brien and Robert Van Kleeck). Kathleen O’Brien contended with the boundary line adjustment her father’s burial site will be moved to private property to which she does not have access. Robert Van Kleeck assured there is access to the burial site via his driveway at 718 Barstow Road to any family member. It was clarified the ashes of the family patriarch, George O’Brien, are buried on the property.

 

Susan O’Brien spoke in favor and support of the boundary line adjustment, opining her father would be pleased that the land is being protected and kept in the family. Susan O’Brien said she is assured access will always be available to her.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the appeal.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo from Dean Pierce on the appeal, dated July 28, 2010 for the August 4, 2010 meeting. Dean Pierce reported there is evidence in support of the following facts:

·        The town has zoning laws in effect - Evidence: Selectboard minutes of April 2010 reflect approval of amendments to the zoning regulations.

·        The violator owns/occupies the property in question – Evidence: Letter from Gregg Beldock in 2008 to Town of Shelburne regarding change in appraisal for Senior Bay Senior Living.

·        The violator engaged in conduct not in support of the regulations (e.g. land development without a permit) – Evidence: Pictures taken June 25, 2010 show excavation and clearing work on the property.

·        Notice of Violation was issued – Evidence: Copy of the Notice of Violation document that was issued.

 

Notices of Violation were sent for two properties: The Lodge (formerly the Ponderosa Restaurant parcel) and Shelburne Bay Senior Living (only the latter was appealed). Mr. Pierce pointed out the staff memo includes a timeline of activity from June 9, 2010 to August 3, 2010. Dates of interest include June 25, 2010 when the Notice of Violation was issued, July 10, 2010 when the appeal period for the Notice of Violation expired, July 19, 2010 when the zoning permit was issued after the application was deemed complete, and August 3, 2010 when the appeal period for the permit expired. Appeal of the Notice of Violation was made two days after the July 10, 2010 deadline according to the date of July 12, 2010 on the letter from Doug Moses with Bullrock Corporation, said Mr. Pierce. There is nothing in the appeal letter from Mr. Moses citing evidence or argument against the Notice of Violation for land development without a permit. Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator’s action in issuing a Notice of Violation be upheld and the appeal denied.

 

Peter Gibbs summarized:

·      Development on the site was happening, but a building permit was not issued.

·      There is no information from the developer denying there was development happening and that there was not a permit in hand.

·      The application was incomplete then the impact fee was paid and construction started.

·      There is no information from the developer to refute the construction work.

·      At some point the application was deemed complete (July 14, 2010) and a permit issued (July 19, 2010).

 

Dean Pierce noted the Zoning Administrator has 30 days to take action once the application is complete, but John Adams issued a permit in five days. Per statute the Zoning Administrator’s activity does not have effect until the end of the appeal period which is 15 days. August 3, 2010 is when the appeal period ended and the violation ‘cured’. The ramification of a violation is a fine.

 

Peter Gibbs asked how Doug Moses was aware of the appeal hearing. John Adams testified Mr. Moses was sent a copy of the meeting notice that is posted as well as a copy of the agenda and staff report. Mr. Adams added he had conversation with Mr. Moses and assured he was aware of the meeting.

 

APPELLANT COMMENTS

None.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8 PM.

 

 TOWN OF SHELBURNE

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ernest Auclair, Dick Hess, Bob Blair, Jim and Kendra Westphalen, Kris Engstrom, Chris Snyder, Trafton Crandall, Beth Demas, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Sketch Plan, Boundary Line Adjustment, 417 Bostwick Road and 395 Bostwick Road, James Westphalen (SUB10-04)

·        Final PRD Amendment, Eliminate One Unit and Reconfigure Multi-Family Units, Rivercrest Development, Thompson Road/Irish Hill Road, Snyder Rivercrest, LLC (SUB01-07R4)

·        Design Review, Conditional Use, and Site Plan Amendment, Renovations & Addition, 5657 Shelburne Road (In Full Bloom), Kristine Engstrom (DR10-15\CU10-02R1\SP95-08R2)

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

·        Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use, 40-seat Restaurant, 4109 Shelburne Road, Bruce Righi (SP09-01R1\CU06-08R1)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM. There were no announcements or disclosures at this time.

 

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.

 

Jim Westphalen appeared on behalf of the application. David Conard announced he had conversation with Mr. Westphalen about a year and a half ago regarding an addition to the house, but not a boundary line adjustment, but this fact will not impact his ability to hear and act on the application before the DRB. The DRB concurred.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/18/10. John Adams explained the town does not have a separate boundary line adjustment process so the action must go through the subdivision process. The swap of land equals 1,700 s.f. Staff recommends the subdivision be classified as a minor subdivision. After classification the application can proceed to Final Plan review for the boundary line adjustment. Neither lot nor the structure will become nonconforming with the boundary line adjustment.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jim Westphalen credited Bob Blair with the foresight to suggest the boundary line adjustment to allow for some plantings and ease of snow plowing the circular driveway.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Chris Snyder appeared on behalf of the application. David Conard disclosed he has represented people who have purchased units built by Snyder and done legal work for Mr. Snyder’s lender with respect to the project, but does not feel this will impact on making an impartial ruling. The DRB concurred.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/18/10. John Adams explained the request to modify the PRD approval for the Rivercrest project.  A revised layout of the development was given to the DRB. The reconfiguration will not impact setbacks or periphery buffers. Peter Gibbs asked if the ratio of affordable housing is changed and if there are any issues with the development. John Adams stated there is the same number of affordable units. One of the market rate units is being eliminated. There are no outstanding violations associated with the project

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Snyder stated after three years of working on the project it was decided the layout of unit #15 and unit #20 backing up to the view corridors of other units is not desirable. Buyers are not willing to purchase denser properties with certain impacts. The solution in order to maintain the affordable component of the project is to decrease the number of units by one in the interior of the development. The new layout provides more space and angles the units to avoid looking at the side of another unit. Unit #15 is tight, but is already constructed.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kristine Engstrom appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/18/10. John Adams stated a state storm water easement forced the minor addition to the flower shop to be located to the rear of the building rather than the side of the building. The Design Review Committee preferred the new proposal.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Kristine Engstrom stated the current plan does exactly what is needed with the flower shop and provides southern light as an added benefit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

There was brief discussion of adding language to the application about researching easements. Peter Gibbs pointed out a survey will show these details.

 

Mike Anderson appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/12/10 for the 8/18/10 meeting. John Adams recalled the application was continued a number of times at the request of the different parties involved. The applicant’s attorney sent a letter to the DRB, dated 8/4/10.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mike Anderson said he had no further comments to add to the letter from Attorney Ed Fitzpatrick, dated 8/4/10, regarding the easement.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Beth Demas, attorney representing the Auclair family, submitted a map showing the easement agreement and the lot the access is to serve. Attorney Demas pointed out the map shows the original easement did not physically go to the site. The easement agreement grants a 60’ wide easement going in a southerly direction from Route 116 to the southern most portion of the Auclair property. The map shows the Lewis lot farther to the east than it actually is. The easement is to follow the existing farm road. The farm road goes from Route 116 to the turnaround. A demarcation of a 20’ access (shown as a dotted line on the map) to the Lewis lot and the Anderson lot is “wishful thinking” of what Mr. Anderson would need and wants to have, said Ms. Demas.

 

David Conard observed the information presented by Attorney Demas deals with the original sketch plan for the subdivision and refers to an easement extending toward the Auclair property and the Ralph Lewis Trust property. Mike Anderson stated a boundary line survey had not been done at that point in time so the exact point of where the Lewis property started and stopped was not known. David Conard confirmed that Mr. Anderson does not dispute the Lewis lot is farther back than first assumed. Mr. Conard also stated Mr. Anderson did not present evidence in support of a deeded access easement that complies with the ordinance, noting it is not the task of the DRB to adjudicate title or rights-of-way. The applicant did not show easement to the Ralph Lewis Trust property, opined Mr. Conard, and the Lewis property was never owned by Mr. Anderson. Additionally, it is not known if the easement was extinguished with the foreclosure by Auclair. Mike Anderson asked if the DRB decides if there was or was not a valid way to access the property. David Conard explained a house can be built on a lot without frontage on a public road or being served with a public water supply if a sufficient right-of-way is shown to connect to the public road and public water service. Sufficient evidence was not provided by the applicant to show that the right-of-way does this. It is a legal question, stated Mr. Conard.

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the DRB.

 

Trafton Crandall and Bruce Righi appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/18/10. John Adams explained the site plan amendment and conditional use application is for conversion of the building into a 40-seat restaurant plus additional parking, changes to the fencing, the dumpster location, and the walkway from the back parking area. Issues to consider include the parking waiver requested by the applicant for three parking spaces, lighting that must conform to current regulations, and screening, especially of the new parking spaces to prevent headlights from shining onto residences to the east. A site visit can be scheduled if the DRB feels this will be useful.

 

Peter Gibbs clarified the change of use is from a convenience store to a restaurant and the structure is existing and nonconforming to the setbacks. Mr. Gibbs asked if the change of use impacts the existing nonconformity. John Adams explained the use can change, but cannot encroach farther into the setbacks. Any additions to the building must conform to current setbacks. The new parking spaces fit within the defined building envelope on the site. The nonconformity is not related to the use, but is related to the structure. The use must meet the conditional use criteria. Peter Gibbs commented impacts under the conditional use criteria may change with the change in use.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Trafton Crandall stated the proposed change of use for a 40-seat restaurant is the minimum number of seats that make the endeavor economically feasible. There are no changes to the exterior of the building. The changes proposed are for parking and the dumpster enclosure. The location of the additional parking spaces complies with current zoning regulations. The new zoning rules make the building less nonconforming. The Route 7 project resulted in the loss of some of the land at the front of the lot (along Route 7) and on the curvature on Longmeadow Drive so part of the nonconformity is due to changes to Route 7. Mr. Crandall explained the request for a waiver of three parking spaces, noting the regulations require one space per two restaurant seats, but the building is located near public transit service and has bike and pedestrian access. Requiring one space per two restaurant seats is conservative, added Mr. Crandall, as a more typical ratio is one space for every four seats as the standard in many other communities. Regarding lighting, changes in lighting on the building include down shielded incandescent floodlights that meet the regulations in Section 1975. The entrance to the site is from Longmeadow Drive. The size of the entrance will be decreased to the rear parking area. Presently the area is gravel and not well defined. An 18” soil berm will be added to better define the area and the width will be the standard size of 24’- 25’. Single split rail fencing, two and half feet high, will be installed on the corner and along the edge of the embankment to help define the access. There will be a gravel walk along the fence. The rear parking area will be graveled and better defined. The dumpster enclosure will be reduced in size to 12’x 12’. White cedars will be planted in front of the parking in the rear and along the boundary line with the adjoining property. Bruce Righi noted the neighboring micro-processing business removed some bushes for their solar panel. There is a residential apartment building across the street.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the 40 seats include outside seating. Trafton Crandall said the 40 seats are inside the building. There will be one picnic table outside and a window to serve take-out creemees. There is no intent to put tables on the deck at this point. Dick Hess (tenant and restaurant operator) stated the food prep area is small. There will be counter service (no wait staff). The restaurant will be family oriented and affordably priced, serving LaPlatte Beef burgers, hot dogs, french fries, soda, chicken sandwiches, beer and wine eventually (though not as a bar). There is lots of excitement for this type of restaurant at this end of town, said Mr. Hess. Hours of operation are 11 AM to 9 PM or 10 PM depending on how robust business is. Mr. Gibbs asked about staff parking. Trafton Crandall stated there are five parking places in the back of the building plus one employee parking space by the dumpster.

 

David Conard expressed concern about traffic circulation on the site and asked if there is a way to change the pattern by having one curb cut and angled parking. Trafton Crandall pointed out there is a grade change (drop off) on the north side of the building. With the three additional parking spaces lot coverage is close to the allowable limit. If the spaces are moved more to the north lot coverage will be exceeded. David Conard asked if the creemee window is there now and permitted. John Adams stated the window is existing. The prior approval was for a pizzeria, deli, and convenience store. Mark Sammut noted the greatest outflow of traffic from the neighborhoods is in the morning when people are going to work so there will not be a conflict with the restaurant which opens at 11 AM. In the evening traffic flow is more spread out over time. The former pizzeria at the site had lots of traffic flow without the parking that is presently proposed and there was not a problem. Trafton Crandall agreed the peak traffic period for the restaurant will not coincide with work and school traffic.

 

Mark Sammut asked about snow storage. Bruce Righi said the snow will be pushed by the north side of the building to the ravine. Trafton Crandall added moving the dumpster opened up space for snow to be pushed to an open area.

 

There was mention of easements and any language to prohibit the type of business being proposed. Trafton Crandall noted easement language was submitted with the previous application. Mr. Crandall submitted the right-of-way agreement.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

DRB members will do individual site visits on their own schedule.

 

 

 

A tentative date of September 15, 2010 was set for the joint meeting. Topics to be discussed should be forwarded to Peter Gibbs by 9/1/10.  Discussion items include a procedure for a boundary line adjustment and lot merger or dissolving a lot line.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.