DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bill Gardner, John Kovac, Frank Thornton, John Holt, Jim Bahrenburg Andrew Canfield, Colm Thompson, Trishia Thompson, Dan Desaulets, Richard Dall, Brian Precourt, Heather McKim (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Front Door & Walkway, 245 Marsett Road, Colm and Trishia Thompson (DR10-17)

·        Design Review, Full Foundation with Basement, 462 Falls Road, Henry and Alice Baker (DR10-18)

·        Design Review, Replace Free Standing Sign, 77 Falls Road, Marguerite Canfield (DR10-19)

·        Design Review, Metal Roof, 5921 Shelburne Road, Francis and Geralynn Thornton (DR10-21)

·        Design Review, Window & Railing, 97 Falls Road, Kovac (DR10-20)

·        Final Plan, PUD, Commercial Storage in Existing Barns, 3871 Shelburne Road, Precourt Investment Co., LLC (SUB10-03)

·        Sketch Plan, Food Processing Facility, Lot 3, 30 Executive Drive, NPC Processing, Inc. (SUB10-05)

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

 

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.

 

Trishia and Colm Thompson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams reported the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the plan to reinstall a front door and install a new brick walkway without conditions.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

The applicant had no further comments to the staff report.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams explained the applicant is proposing to add a full foundation with a walkout basement to replace support piers that are sinking. The Design Review Committee approved the proposal without conditions.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

None.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams explained the applicant is replacing the existing sign with a sign of the same size. The parking directional sign will also be replaced. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the plan without conditions. There are existing ground mounted lights for the sign. The applicant is not required to change the lighting to above the sign with the change to the face of the sign.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

None.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Francis Thornton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams reported the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the plan to replace the asphalt roof shingles with a standing seam metal roof without conditions.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

Mr. Thornton noted he is waiting for samples of the roof colors before making a decision on the color.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Kovac and Bill Gardner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams explained renovations to the exterior of the building to comply with ADA requirements. Separate approval is need for the sign.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

The applicant characterized the restaurant as “the charm of Vermont meeting the Adirondack spirit”. American food will be served. A nice wine list will be offered. There was brief discussion of the windows. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested installing a double hung window to improve the aesthetics.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams noted this is the final review of the proposal to use existing barns in the mixed use PUD for commercial storage.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

Brian Precourt stated wetlands are delineated on the site plan, mirroring the 50’ setback.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dan Desaulets and Richard Dahl (Dubois & King Engineering) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/3/10. John Adams explained the proposal to construct a 17,744 s.f., two-story building to serve as a meat processing plant. The application is being reviewed under the subdivision regulations because the application is industrial park development and needs site plan approve. The DRB may want testimony on noise, odors, number of employees and hours of operation. Public Works had no concerns about water or sewer usage. The building may be able to connect to a manhole or there may be need for a new manhole. The building must have sprinklers. There must be adequate turning radium for fire trucks.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dan Desaulets explained two other operations in other locations (South Burlington and Middlebury) will be consolidated at the Shelburne site. Boneless uncooked meat is delivered to the site and processed (tenderized, flavored, and proportioned) then repackaged (vacuum packed). The finished product is delivered to locations both in and out of state. There are no retail sales of the product at the site. Current hours of operation (at the South Burlington plant) are 7 AM to 3 PM. USDA regulates the hours. Time past 3 PM is overtime. There is a night shift to clean the facility each day. Deliveries include meats once a week, common carriers in and out on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and one tractor trailer truck. The company has 32 employees.

 

Richard Dahl stated phase 2 is expanding the building as needed. The cooler space will be converted to freezer space and more cooler space added. The exterior of the building is similar to the Climb High warehouse with off-white insulated metal panels. Presently there are processing plants in South Burlington and Middlebury with freezer storage at Burlington Foods.

 

Peter Gibbs mentioned screening from Route 7 (west elevation of the site), acknowledging the property is one lot removed from Route 7. Mr. Gibbs suggested relocating the parking to the east to allow some landscaping. Also, current labeling of the elevations on the site plan need to be corrected. Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested the HVAC equipment on the roof be screened from view if necessary.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

John Holt, representing Farrell Trust, asked if the plant operates on weekends and the number of trucks anticipated to the site each day. Mr. Desaulets said occasionally the plant will process on a Saturday and no more than three trucks typically come to the plant each day. There have been no complaints about the plant in South Burlington. Mr. Holt asked how waste meat is handled. Mr. Desaulets stated all the meat is used or recycled.  Mr. Holt asked about having the loading bays off Executive Drive rather than on the north side of the building. Mr. Desaulets stated the location as shown on the site plan is the safest for the tractor trailer truck (avoids the blind side).

 

Jim Barenburg, neighbor, asked about the night work. Mr. Desaulets said the interior of the plant is washed and scrubbed. Mr. Barenburg asked about noise from the roof mechanics. Dan Desaulets suggested visiting the plant in Middlebury to witness the noise and any odors. Food is cooked in water bags, except for meatballs which are made a day or two each month.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The DRB suggested submittals that are required and received should be highlighted on the matrix in the appropriate column. New columns should be added to show items promised and requested. Staff will amend the grid.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8 PM.

 

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Joseph Adams, Adam Lougee, Dave Grimason,

Michael A., Heather McKim (Shelburne News).

 

·        Conditional Use, Approval Extension, Seawall, 4327 Harbor Road, Tony Handy (CU08-11)

·        Sketch Plan, Two Lot PUD, 7545 Dorset Street, Adam and Karen Lougee (SUB10-06)

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

 

Joe Adams, UVM student studying Environmental Science and English, explained his case study of two development review boards in Vermont (Shelburne DRB and St. Albans DRB). Mr. Adams said he will be contacting members for an interview to gather information for his thesis which must be complete in the spring.

 

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 staff memo on the application, dated 11/10/10 for the 11/17/10 meeting. John Adams explained the seawall which was approved in 2008 under the current regulations has not yet been constructed. The regulations have not changed since the approval. Staff updated Condition #6 with regard to the extension.  It was clarified approvals typically cover a two year period, however, the applicant is requesting a one year extension.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There were no comments from the applicant.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Adam Lougee appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/17/10. John Adams explained the proposal for a two lot PRD creating one additional building lot slightly larger than one acre in size in the Rural Zoning District. There are two issues, including developable area which excludes mapped floodplain, inventoried Class 2 wetlands, and slope greater than 15%, and satisfaction of Section 1930.3.a with regard to landscaping and screening. The applicant’s property is not in the floodplain and there are wetlands on the parcel, but these have not been inventoried. Regarding slope, it is not known if there is more than .45 acre of slope which would mean subdividing the parcel would not be possible because there would not be the necessary amount of developable area. The applicant should provide evidence on the slope of the land. The DRB can also elect to conduct a site visit. The applicant should also provide evidence of adequate landscaping and screening as well as demonstrating the 30% open space requirement is met. The parcel is 10.45 acres. Minimum lot size for a single family residence in the zone is five acres.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Adam Lougee submitted a map showing 10% slope over the course of the property using a simple ‘rise over run’ methodology. Also submitted was a LIDAR aerial photograph showing data on 15% and 20% slope in the area. Mr. Lougee demonstrated a 15% and 20% slope using a tape measurer, and asked the DRB and Planning Commission to think further about how significantly a 15% slope will impact developable area. Mr. Lougee stated ‘slope’ is not defined in the regulations. Scale makes a difference as witnessed by the maps (rise over run and LIDAR). Regarding landscaping, the house to the south will be most impacted, continued Mr. Lougee, noting he has already transplanted 26 arborvitae from the driveway to along the southern property line. A cellphone photo of the plantings was shown to the DRB. The neighbor to the south finds the plantings acceptable, said the applicant.

 

There was continued discussion of the issue of slope. David Conard asked the minimum cell size (LIDAR) that establishes less than .45 acres of slope. Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about the original intent with regard to the 15% slope. John Adams reiterated there must be 10 acres of developable land for a two lot PRD in the Rural zone. Non-developable land is defined as mapped floodplain, inventoried Class 2 wetlands, and slopes greater than 15%.  Adam Lougee interjected it would be helpful to give the applicant guidance as to how to measure the slope and what is significant to measure. Mr. Lougee contended 15% is not that steep of a slope, and again requested the DRB and Planning Commission think about and clarify the matter. Kay Kraushaar pointed out contiguous area that is slope may be a significant area. Mr. Lougee suggested the DRB do a site visit to view the slope of the land on a real scale.  Anna Rosenblum Palmer commented the slope issue is triggered by a subdivision application, but there have been other developments in town where the slope of the land has been incorporated into the buildings. John Adams noted the development being referred to (Shelburne Bay) was a court decision. David Conard asked how long the 15% slope requirement has been in the ordinance and how many decisions have been issued with this being addressed. John Adams answered the requirement has been in effect for the past year and a half and one major decision has been issued. Mr. Conard stressed the DRB must be consistent in applying the ordinance. Applicants can take their decision to Environmental Court if there is a dispute. There was further discussion of the issue of slope and agreement the Planning Commission should be asked to clarify the regulations with regard to measurement of a slope. Peter Gibbs suggested using a certain amount of length and contour interval for the measurement. Mr. Gibbs asked if every subdivision application must determine 15% slope. Anna Rosenblum Palmer pointed out most of the subdivision applications have been for large parcels so slopes have not been an issue. John Adams added with the applications where developable areas were quantified the only areas that were removed were mapped wetlands and floodplains. The slope criterion is only applicable to subdivisions in the Rural District, but with PRDs and PUDs, slope is applicable across all zoning districts. Anna Rosenblum Palmer opined 15% slope seems very shallow. Mr. Lougee agreed and offered to meet with staff to help develop the discussion for the Planning Commission. Guidance is needed on slope and whether 15% is appropriate.

 

There was discussion about landscaping and screening. It was noted the transplanted arborvitae has lots of growing to do, but when mature will provide a good buffer though not necessarily complete screening. David Conard suggested the plantings be shown on the site plan for the file. Mr. Conard mentioned having a condition of approval that any plantings that die within a defined period of time be replaced with a similarly sized tree. Also, there should be covenants with regard to what can and cannot happen in the open space area. Mr. Lougee stated his intent is to work with the town to keep the space open. There are no plans to build on the other side of the brook. John Adams offered to provide the applicant with information on the intent of open space. David Conard suggested a condition of approval that nothing be built 50’ from the applicant’s side of the brook to the back line aside from the septic system.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dave Grimason, neighbor, spoke in support of the application and noted Mr. Lougee has been very thoughtful with regard to placement of the proposed house. Mr. Grimason requested open space be designated from the brook up to the eastern end of the property line which might encompass more than 33% of the parcel, but working in the additional open space may address the slope issue.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB will ask the Planning Commission to clarify how to apply the 15% slope regulation.

 

 

Postponed until the 12/1/10 meeting.

 

Deliberative session was convened at 7:44 PM and adjourned at 7:45 PM. The regular meeting was reconvened.

 

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 PM.