MEMBERS PRESENT:      Mark Sammut, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, Jeff Pauza, Victor Castro, Laurie Smith, Claude LaPierre. (David Conard and Peter Keelan were absent.).

STAFF PRESENT:              John Adams, DRB Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:          Brian Precourt, Jill Bennett, Jim Bahrenburg, John Holt.

·         Design Review, Three Pole Lights, Shelburne Shopping Park, Precourt Investment Company, LLC (DR12-01)

·         Design Review, Repairs to Accessory Barn, 138 Falls Road, Jill, Alice and Stuart Bennett (DR12-02)

·         Sketch Plan, PUD, Two Duplexes, 75 Northside Drive, James Bahrenburg (SUB08-04R1)

In the absence of Chairman David Conard, Mark Sammut called the meeting to order at 7:03 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.

 

Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/7/12. John Adams explained the proposal to install three pole lights at the shopping center. Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee approved the application.

 

Mark Sammut mentioned the photometric plan being hard to read.  John Adams noted the DRB is reviewed the application for design of the light fixtures, not for the lighting standards (staff is doing this administratively).

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Precourt stated there is a hodgepodge of lights in the shopping center now. The light heads are being switched over to mercury vapor over time (LED was cost prohibitive and the payback time extensive). Light poles will be replaced as needed.  The addition of lights is to provide more light in the shopping park since people walk there.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jill Bennett asked if the lights will be on all night and impact the neighboring houses. Brian Precourt said the two lights by the entrance to the shopping park that are there now will remain without change. These lights do have some spillover into the roadway which is good. The proposed lights are located farther back into the shopping park and will not impact residences.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jill Bennett appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/7/12. John Adams stated the applicant is renovating an existing barn. Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee recommended approval with the condition the windows be replaced with salvage windows with divided light and there is no change to the existing opening.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jill Bennett clarified the work is actually deferred maintenance and repair to address structure issues such as replacing broken windows. There is no intention to change the divided light windows. The use of salvage windows is for budgetary reasons.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jim Bahrenburg appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/7/12. John Adams reported the proposal is to create a PRD of two recently subdivided lots to allow construction of two duplexes. Presently lot frontage requirements in the Residential Zoning District are 100’ frontage for a single family house and 150’ frontage for a duplex. The applicant’s lots have 115’ frontage and 130’ frontage respectively. With a PRD the Development Review Board can grant a waiver of the lot frontage requirement. The applicant plans to keep the current lot layout and build two duplexes rather than single family houses. With a PRD there is a 50’ periphery setback rather than 15’ for a side yard setback in the residential zone. Monroe Brook is at the back of the lots and the area is not buildable so the rear yard setback is not an issue. The proposal by the applicant results in a smaller buildable area with more intensive development of the property.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer mentioned a boundary line adjustment to provide 100’ frontage for both lots.  Mark Sammut commented the 150’ frontage requirement for duplexes may need to be revisited. John Adams stated the Planning Commission is reviewing frontage requirements in the village center, village residential, and Shelburne Falls zones.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jim Bahrenburg noted each lot is approved for a four bedroom house. The proposed duplexes will each have two bedrooms so the total number of bedrooms will not change. The driveways will not change from the plan for the single family houses. One driveway is already built. The other driveway is cut. The duplexes will be in the same building envelope as the single family houses. Regarding a boundary line adjustment, the lots were originally part of the Shelburne Meadows Business Park development and under Act 250 jurisdiction. Adjusting a lot is a major endeavor under Act 250. It is easier and quicker to go through the town subdivision process.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:      David Conard (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, Victor Castro, Laurie Smith. (Claude LaPierre, Jeff Pauza and Peter Keelan were absent.).

STAFF PRESENT:              John Adams, DRB Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:          Dave Marshall, Tom Koerner, Jerry Fisher, Hannah Loope, Kim King, Leslie Wright, Stuart Morrow, Chuck Deslauriers, Larry Michaels, David Webster, Chip Stulen, Chris Galipeau, Kevin Lavery, Kelly Lavery, Mike Deavitt.

·         Final Plan Amendment, Modify Boundary and Condition of Approval, 3946 Harbor Road, Thomas Koerner (SUB07-05R1)

·         Final Plan Amendment, Driveway in Setback, 601 Sycamore Street, O’Brien Brothers Agency, Inc. (SUB01-07R5)

·         Final Plan Amendment, Modify Boundary, Northern Heights Drive, Jerry Fisher (SUB12-01)

·         Site Plan, Art & Education Center, 6000 Shelburne Road, Shelburne Museum (SUB11-06)

Chairman David Conard called the meeting to order at 7 PM and read a resolution formally recognizing, acknowledging, and celebrating the service of Kay Kraushaar on the Shelburne Planning Commission from 1990 through 2009 including two years jointly serving on both the Planning Commission and Development Review Board beginning in 2007  and then continuing to serve on the DRB until January, 2012, reviewing scores of applications and maintaining her commitment to environmental values, and her involvement in revision of the town plan on at least three occasions.

 

 

David Conard announced he had an incidental conversation with Tom Koerner about the ramifications of a PRD prior to Mr. Koerner obtaining a permit for his property. Also, Mr. Koerner’s neighbors, the Saars, are clients, but there has been no contact with them with regard to the Koerner permit.

 

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.

 

Dave Marshall and Tom Koerner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/21/12. John Adams explained the minor boundary line adjustment and modification of an existing condition of approval for the previously approved PRD. The waste water replacement area on Lot 2 of the PRD required by the waste water permit encroaches on the conserved area and will require removal of trees. A certain amount of re-vegetation is possible with the type of  waste water system, but the approval condition (Condition #5) must be revised to address this. A conservation plan should be submitted showing the approved configuration.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dave Marshall noted the PRD approval required 33% of the land preserved in open space so it is proposed that a portion of the waste water treatment area be re-vegetated. There is a portion that is recommended not to be re-vegetated so the system can function.  Re-vegetation can occur in another area to mitigate impacts. There will not be a residential component on the side of the property where the waste water treatment system is located. The replacement field for the septic system which is designed to meet modern needs is larger than anticipated and encroaches on the conservation area. Tom Koerner noted the neighbors (Saar) have cleared their property up to the woods leaving the rest of the area wooded. The area that cannot be re-vegetated is being replaced in another area. Also, there will be plantings by the road that will provide additional cover.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about a wildlife corridor in the area. Tom Koerner said there is a heavily wooded area that is used by deer to access the lake.

 

Laurie Smith asked about the state requirement for a replacement area. Dave Marshall explained the obligation is with the subdivision of the property. New construction (house) is not allowed on Lot #1 and Lot #3 is not developable for new construction.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Larry Michaels, Kevin Lavery, and Kelly Lavery appeared on behalf of the application. Victor Castro disclosed he is friends with the Laverys, but there has been no ex parte communication about the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/21/12. John Adams explained options to allow the driveway include modifying the building envelope or including a condition of approval to allow construction of the driveway outside the building envelope. Of note is that the Planning Commission is discussing modifying the definition of side and front yard setbacks to allow driveways within five feet of the property line.

 

David Conard mentioned changing the approval for the Rivercrest development as a whole rather than lot by lot. John Adams stated the warning for the meeting is for the specified lot (Lot 17).

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Kevin Lavery stated the location of the driveway was due to a miscalculation and the mistake was not noticed until the house was built.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jerry Fisher appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/21/12. John Adams explained the boundary line adjustment to shift the boundary to the east and incorporate a portion of Northern Heights Drive. The location of the front yard setback will change. The proposal will allow construction farther from the slope eliminating the need for a variance for the building envelope. Comments from the Fire Chief on the turnaround area have not yet been received. The applicant is also seeking a waiver of the subdivision standard requiring connectivity because there is a quarry where the road ends so connectivity is not possible. Options for the applicant include not incorporating the road and working with the existing building envelope and seeking a variance or reconfiguring Lot #7 to be five acres, keeping the same setbacks and incorporating the road.

 

David Conard suggested rather than a cul-de-sac at the end of Lot 2, the road could terminate at the boundary of Lot 7 and then have a driveway into the lot. Reconfiguration of Lot 8 would be for 4.1 acres and though the lot is undersized for the zone, this would not be more undersized than it is presently. John Adams stated a boundary line adjustment without creating a five acre lot is allowed as long as the lot is not being made more nonconforming and other issues are resolved as well. David Conard pointed out Lot 7 becomes more conforming while Lot 8 is not made more nonconforming.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jerry Fisher noted without the road included the lot is only 4.2 acres, not five acres.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Morrow mentioned honoring the setbacks at the time the lots were created. John Adams stated the record is not clear as to when the lots were created (there is information from 1970 and some information that suggests the 1960s). Current zoning regulations are applied when development occurs.  Mr. Morrow said there is a subdivision plat from 1970 recorded in the town file. The setbacks at that time were 25’ front yard and 10’ back yard and side yard. David Conard noted according to the record the lot was revised in 1969 twice and in July 1970, but filed in the land record in 1976. John Adams stated rights do not vest with the setbacks at the time. Stuart Morrow urged making sure lots do not become unbuildable when zoning regulations are changed. There was brief debate about who would be creating the hardship with Lot 8 of the Fisher property if a boundary adjustment is done – the town or the applicant.

 

There were no further comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Chris Galipeau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/21/12. John Adams reported the lighting has been revised and now conforms to the town’s bylaws. There have been minor location changes to the walkways, bike rack, and transformer. Landscaping modifications include extending the split rail fence to the north with an opening for access. An evening time rendering of the site has been provided by the applicant.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Galipeau explained the plan for the sewer line replacement along Shelburne Road. The old line will be abandoned going up the hill once the five houses owned by the Museum are removed and the parallel sewer line is in place. Also, Shelburne Museum is working with an arborist to determine the best location for the sidewalk and the sewer line. John Adams noted staff can administratively approve the final location of the sidewalk.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Postponed.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.