Minutes

Agendas - Board of Civil Authority/Board of Abatements

Agendas - Cemetery Commission

Agendas - Development Review Board

Agendas - Ethics Committee

Agendas - Historic Preservation & Design Review Commission

Agendas - Natural Resources & Conservation Committee

Agendas - Parks & Recreation Committee

Agendas - Pierson Library Trustees Meeting

Agendas - Planning Commission

Agendas -Shelburne Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Committee

Agendas - Selectboard Agendas

Agendas - Social Services Committee

Agendas - Tree Advisory Committee

Agendas - Veterans' Monument Committee

Agendas - Village Dog Park Committee

Agendas - Water Commission

Minutes - Board of Civil Authority/Abatement

Minutes - Cemetery Commission

Minutes - Development Review Board/Zoning Board of Adjustment

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2002

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2003

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2004

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2005

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - 2006

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - Jan - Sep 2007

Development Review Board Minutes - Sep 2007/2008

Development Review Board Minutes - 2009

Development Review Board Meeting Minutes - 2010

Development Review Board Meeting Minutes - 2011

Development Review Board Minutes - 2012

Development Review Board Minutes - 2013

Development Review Board Minutes - 2014

Minutes - Ethics Committee

Minutes - Historic Preservation & Design Review Commission

Minutes - Natural Resources & Conservation Committee

Minutes - Pierson Library Trustee

Minutes - Planning Commission

Minutes - Recreation Committee

Minutes - Selectboard

Minutes - Shelburne Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Committee

Minutes - Social Services Committee

Minutes - Veterans' Monument Committee

Minutes - Village Dog Park Committee

Minutes - Water Commission
 



minutes

June 2012

MINUTES SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY THE SHELBURNE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD. CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD.
TOWN OF SHELBURNE

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
June 6, 2012
 
MEMBERS PRESENT:      David Conard (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, Jeff Pauza, Laurie Smith, Peter Keelan. (Victor Castro was absent.).
STAFF PRESENT:              John Adams, DRB Administrator.
OTHERS PRESENT:          David Webster, Kathy Beyer, Erica Richard, Walter Bartley, Marsett Ockert, Ernest Marcelino, Michael Dugan, Sam Deavitt, Pat Kingsland, Laura Kingsland, Mike Deavitt, Rick Fisher, James Bahrenburg, Ziggy Comeau, Jerry Fisher, Stuart Morrow, David Marshall, Brian Precourt, Chuck Dunham, Gail Albert, Patrick O’Brien, David Carroll, Jody Carriere, Susan Morse, Charlie Proutt.
AGENDA:
  1. Call to Order and Announcements
  2. Public Comment
  3. Applications
·         Design Review, Rooftop Sign, 15 Falls Road, David Webster/Jennifer Blanchard (DR12-04)
·         Design Review, Free Standing Sign Replacement, 928 Falls Road, Jeff Small (DR12-07)
·         Re-approval, Preliminary Plan, Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road, Champlain Housing Trust/Housing Vermont (SUB10-07)
·         Boundary Line Adjustment, 30 & 90 Church Street, St. Catherine of Sienna Parish (SUB12-02)
·         Final Plan, PUD, 75 Northside Drive, James Bahrenburg (SUB08-04R1)
·         Variance, Modify Front Yard Setback, Northern Heights Drive, Jerry Fisher (V12-07)
·         Preliminary Plan, Subdivision, 4484, 2055, 4188, and 4190 Shelburne Road, Rice Lumber Co. (SUB11-07)
  1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Other Business/Correspondence
  3. Adjournment and/or Deliberative Session
 

1.         CALL TO ORDER and ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman David Conard called the meeting to order at 7 PM. David Conard and Anna Rosenblum Palmer disclosed Patrick O’Brien had contacted them with questions relative to the Rice Lumber application and Mr. O’Brien was advised to bring his information before the DRB.
 
2.         PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public at this time.
 
3.         APPLICATIONS
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.
 
DR12-04: Design Review application for a rooftop sign for Chez Boheme at 15 Falls Road by David Webster (owner)/Jennifer Blanchard (applicant)
No one appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application dated 6/6/12. John Adams reported the façade sign for Chez Boheme at 15 Falls Road will be located between the eave and ridge of the second story. Shelburne Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (SHP&DRC) recommended approval without conditions.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
None.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Rooftop Sign, 15 Falls Road, Webster/Blanchard (DR12-04)
MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Laurie Smith, to grant design review approval of DR12-04, application by Jennifer Blanchard/Chez Boheme for a rooftop sign at 15 Falls Road utilizing the existing brackets and lighting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
DR12-07: Design Review for a replacement free-standing sign at 928 Falls Road by Jeff Small
No one appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12.  John Adams reported the proposal is for a free-standing sign at the former Civil Engineering Associates building. SHP&DRC recommended approval without conditions.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
None.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review, Replacement Free-Standing Sign, 928 Falls Road, Small (DR12-07)
MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Peter Keelan, to grant design review approval of DR12-07, application by Jeff Small for a replacement free-standing sign at 928 Falls Road as submitted on the document with the handwritten date of May 24, 2012. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
SUB10-07: Re-approval of Preliminary Plan for a Mixed Use PUD consisting of affordable and market housing to include apartments, single family homes, townhouse units, senior housing and a retail/commercial unit at 5059 Shelburne Road in the Village Center Zoning District and Village Design Review Overlay District by Champlain Housing Trust/Housing Vermont
Kathy Beyer appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12.  John Adams stated the applicant is seeking re-approval of the Preliminary Plan as the approval expires on 6/8/12 and the applicant is not ready to submit the Final Plan.  Re-approval will allow six months to submit the final plan.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
None.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Re-approval, Preliminary Plan, Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road, Champlain Housing Trust/Housing Vermont
MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Jeff Pauza, to re-approve SUB10-07 (application by Champlain Housing Trust for a Mixed Use PUD at 5059 Shelburne Road) in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Decision signed December 8, 20122 by the Chair of the Development Review Board, and further, all conditions of the original approval shall remain unmodified. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
SUB12-02: Boundary Line Adjustment at 30 and 92 Church Street between St. Catherine of Sienna Parish and First United Methodist Church of Shelburne in the Village Center Mixed Use Zoning District by St. Catherine of Sienna Parish Charitable Trust
Brian Precourt and Chuck Dunham appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12. John Adams explained the request for a boundary line adjustment to remove the boundary line from bisecting the church rectory. The matter cannot be handled administratively because the regulations require site plan review with a boundary line adjustment. As such the application must be classified as a minor subdivision.  Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested the Planning Commission be asked to review the regulations with regard to a minor boundary line adjustment so site plan review is not required.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Brian Precourt gave a brief history of the church property and boundary lines, noting with the boundary line adjustment the easement granted to the Methodist Church many years ago is being formalized.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the application was closed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Boundary Line Adjustment, 30 Church Street and 92 Church Street, St. Catherine of Sienna Charitable Trust (SUB12-02)
MOTION by Mark Sammut, SECOND by Laurie Smith, to classify the application for a boundary line adjustment at 30 & 92 Church Street (SUB12-02) as a minor subdivision. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
MOTION by Mark Sammut, SECOND by Laurie Smith, to grant sketch plan approval of SUB12-02, application by St. Catherine of Sienna Charitable Trust for the relocation of a property boundary resulting in the transfer of approximately .01 acres of land from the property located at 92 Church Street to the property located at 30 Church Street as depicted on the submitted plan, dated May 9, 2012, titled “Boundary Agreement between First United Methodist Church of Shelburne & St. Catherine of Sienna Parish Charitable Trust”, drawn by Civil Engineering Associates, dated May 3, 2012.  VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
SUB08-04R1: Final Plan for a PUD involving two existing vacant lots and resulting in the creation of two duplexes at 75 Northside Drive in the Residential Zoning District by James Bahrenburg
James Bahrenburg appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12.   John Adams stated the applicant is proposing to subdivide two existing residential lots for a PRD with two duplexes where originally only single family homes were allowed.  The site plan shows each duplex has a sewer lateral.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
None.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Final Plan, PUD, Two Duplexes, 75 Northside Drive, Bahrenburg (SUB08-04R1)
MOTION by Mark Sammut, SECOND by Peter Keelan, to grant final plan approval of SUB08-04R1, application by James Bahrenburg for a two lot PUD with two duplexes at 75 Northside Drive with the following condition(s):
1.         Any prior conditions of approval of SUB08-04 unaffected by this approval shall remain unmodified.
2.         Each unit in the proposed duplexes shall have individual sewer laterals that each discharge into the private manhole unless specifically authorized by the Shelburne Waste Water Superintendent.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
V12-07: Variance application to modify the front yard setback for a vacant lot on Northern Heights Drive in the Rural Zoning District by Jerry Fisher
Jerry Fisher and Stuart Morrow appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12. John Adams briefly reviewed the application for a single family house on a lot on Northern Heights Drive that was continued from a previous meeting pending further information from the applicant that demonstrates no reasonable use of the property without a variance and the variance requested is the minimum variance.  The applicant submitted a letter indicating the lot is larger than five acres which has a larger setback than a smaller lot. As a result there is no area at the back of the lot to build a house. The applicant is requesting a setback variance for the building envelope and has submitted two options for consideration.  The proposed location of one building envelope is in front of the neighbor’s house. The DRB should confirm the variance requested is the least variance to afford relief and determine the impact on neighbors and the character of the area. Regarding clearing and plantings, additional plantings where there is clearing to take place at the northern most end of the property (by the quarry) could be required. Given the extent of the activity that has occurred to date, adjoining neighbors should be notified of the schedule before any more work takes place.
 
Correspondence from Walter Bartlay and Erica Richard (adjoining property owners), dated 6/6/12, was received regarding the application.  John Adams noted some items in the correspondence are irrelevant to the application and do not involve the DRB.
 
David Conard referred to the notation on the recorded plan in 1970 regarding the statement by Laura Fisher on the private subdivision of land to be used by the Fisher family and any transfer outside of the family be submitted to the planning commission for approval. John Adams clarified the plat recorded in 1976 and signed by the Shelburne Planning Commission is the one being used with the application.  David Conard asked if any of the activity that has occurred at the site thus far requires a permit. John Adams stated there is an investigation underway to determine if a violation of the excavation and fill bylaw (Section 2020) has taken place.  Mr. Conard suggested if the building envelope is approved there could be a condition that requires a specific number of trees be planted or the amount of clearing be limited to minimize impact on adjoining properties and the character of the area. David Conard noted the variance statute states “make reasonable use” of the property, but does not say the applicant has to be able to build a house. Argument could be made that the applicant is already making reasonable use of the property by using the land for a community waste water system for the existing parcels.  John Adams stated the DRB can request a legal opinion on the matter.
 
Laurie Smith asked about the existing lots (lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). John Adams stated a variance for relief from the setback was granted and a building permit issued for Lot 1. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have structures on them.
 
Jeff Pauza asked how the extra acre was added to the lot. Stuart Morrow explained the original plan done in the mid-1960s was mathematically in error and did not have the accurate acreage for Lot 8.  Recent field work confirmed the acreage. Jerry Fisher noted in 1998-99 there was a swap of .42 acres. John Adams added there is a Mylar that is not signed or recorded in the land records which reflects new work by Stuart Morrow. Mr. Morrow stated the survey showing the boundary line adjustment between Lot 7 and Lot 8 is the correct field measurement. The actual right-of-way (Northern Heights Drive) is a separate parcel and does not go with any lot. John Adams recalled there was past discussion of combining Northern Heights Drive with Lot 8 to create smaller setbacks, and a condition of prior approval for the boundary line adjustment that required a hammerhead turnaround approved by the Fire Chief. Stuart Morrow pointed out the plan shows the boundary adjustment between lots 7 and 8. The hammerhead turnaround is on the recordable plan. The hammerhead turnaround is within the right-of-way.
 
Peter Keelan asked if the right-of-way is owned by all the neighbors. Stuart Morrow stated Jerry Fisher has free title to the right-of-way which historically has been in the Fisher family. There is not a homeowners association for the development.
 
There was mention of doing a site visit. The DRB concurred a site visit would be appropriate. The DRB will ask the applicant to stake the proposed building envelopes to show the location, proximity to houses, the natural barriers (trees), and also to submit additional information on the waste water system to determine if this is ‘reasonable use’ of the property. Walter Bartley (neighbor) noted there is a 20’ easement/right-of-way for a pipe on the east side of Lot 8 and a 60’ right-of-way on the west side.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Jerry Fisher responded to the statement by David Conard regarding a waste water system on Lot 8 for Lot 1 by noting the system is designed for lots 1 and 8. Mr. Fisher said the town told him he was fully approved for the building lots. The lots were approved in 1976.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
Rick Fisher mentioned with regard to the recent blasting at the site, the contractor tried to notify the neighbor (Richard), but was not able to go to the door due to dogs in the yard so he knocked on the window however no one was home at the time.  Mr. Fisher stated they do not want any problems with the neighbors.
 
Ziggy Comeau, realtor, commented on the apparent change in the classification of the lots as building lots to not being building lots and needing variances. Ms. Comeau recalled she contacted John Adams on January 13, 2012 to ask if there were any problems with Lot 8 (listed as five acres) due to the configuration (long) and the setbacks and Mr. Adams said the lots would be treated as preexisting lots with the setbacks as preexisting at the time. A contractor interested in purchasing lots 1, 7, and 8 found no problems when the land records were researched. Another interested buyer investigated Lot 8 and found no problems. A third couple hired an attorney to research the record and the attorney found no problems with the lots. With the first buyer interested in Lot 1, John Adams at first said there are no problems with the lot, but then said a variance would be necessary which seems to say the lot is not a separate lot.  David Conard noted per Vermont law undersized lots that border each other and in common ownership are considered merged. Jerry Fisher owns all the lots so there is a question of whether the lots are legally merged. The Town Attorney advised the lots are legally separate lots. The DRB must determine if the lot is a building lot or not, and if the variance criteria can be satisfied. The DRB has already ruled that the lots are valid, preexisting lots and the hardship was not created by the applicant, but all the variance criteria must be met.
 
Mike Deavitt stated he has a surveyor working with Stuart Morrow to determine the true boundaries of the property. Pins will be placed.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Variance, Modify Front Yard Setback, Northern Heights Drive, Fisher (V12-07)
MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Jeff Pauza, to conduct a site visit on June 20, 2012 at 6 PM at Northern Heights Drive and to ask the applicant to stake the building envelopes on the site. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
MOTION by Anna Rosenblum Palmer, SECOND by Laurie Smith, to continue V12-07, application by Jerry Fisher for a variance from the front yard setback on Northern Heights Drive until June 20, 2012. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
SUB11-07: Preliminary Plan approval to subdivide 46 acres at 4484, 2055, 4188, and 4190 Shelburne Road in the Mixed Use Zoning District into six commercial lots and four residential lots by Rice Lumber Co.
Patrick O’Brien, Dave Marshall, Dave Carroll, Susan Morse, Jody Carriere, Charlie Proutt, and Michael Dugan appeared on behalf of the application.
 
STAFF REPORT
The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/6/12. John Adams reported the applicant submitted new information and staff drafted a memo which noted the following:
  • The DRB should request information on the impact of the residential building envelopes on the ecosystem.
  • Shelburne Natural Resources and Conservation Commission commented on the building envelopes and visual impact from Shelburne Farms and Bay Road, suggesting that lighting be limited, there be screening, storm water runoff be addressed in a more creative manner than a large pond along Shelburne Road.
  • Design issues with the application include:
o   connecting the sidewalk (the bylaw requires connection between two buildings);
o   showing the location of the dumpster and bike rack on the site plan;
o   showing the entrance way or clearing of trees for the road so the view from Shelburne Road is known.
·         The DRB can encourage the applicant to consider changes to the design of the buildings as recommended by SHP&DRC.
·         SHP&DRC is also recommending a variety of elm trees for the landscaping and that the existing buildings be retained and used as long as possible.
·         The DRB should ask for information on traffic circulation/curb cut relative to the jug handle and safety concerns.
·         Deconstruction details are needed on the buildings to be removed as well as a rendering of what the area will look like without the buildings.
·         Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 do not have proposed development at this time and should not be approved since this does not conform to the PUD bylaws. A site plan is needed to demonstrate how the lots will be developed otherwise there is only one large lot (Lot 6) to be subdivided in the future. If lot lines were drawn the lines would bisect the building and create a nonconforming use.
·         Regarding safety for pedestrians without a sidewalk, if justified the DRB can waive the standard for sidewalk construction and have the applicant present an alternative sidewalk at final plan review, such as a pedestrian walkway rather than a sidewalk.
 
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Patrick O’Brien explained the following:
  • The property owners (Carroll) want a lot and house for each sibling, but if the conservation group raises enough money to purchase the property the Carroll family will sell the land. Per IRS rules, if the land is donated for conservation then two years must pass before applying for a subdivision. Another option is to go through the subdivision process and then donate the land. At this time the intention is to subdivide the land so the Carroll family can reside there, but there is agreement to give the conservation group some time to raise money for the land purchase.
  • Regarding rare plant and tree species, preferred habitat for four species of plants that were identified was not found on the building envelopes.
  • Regarding the right turn onto Route 7 and proximity to the jug handle, VTrans will do the third party review involving traffic and Route 7.
  • Dumpsters and bike racks will be shown on the site plan.
  • An updated landscape plan will be submitted. SHP&DRC advised on lot layout for the existing facility.
  • The buildings to be removed have been earmarked. A proposed condition on the removal of buildings could say the buildings to be removed shall be identified and if the building becomes vacant for a period of 12 months, the building shall be taken down. Act 250 will have input on the matter. Historic features have to be catalogued before a building is razed.
 
There was discussion of traffic circulation and access. The DRB expressed concern that by not creating connectivity from the signalized intersection to the site a traffic problem will be created by large trucks coming from the south and traveling north blocking the intersection when trying to make the U-turn to access the site (there is no guarantee large trucks will use the IDX turnaround three miles up the road). Patrick O’Brien recalled connectivity from the signalized intersection was shown on the Sketch Plan, but the cost to build the road would be $1 million due to required blasting and earthwork. Dave Carroll noted the vast majority of the 18-wheel trucks are coming from the interstate and traveling south to the site. Mr. Carroll assured he will control deliveries to the site by sending large trucks to the IDX turnaround. Another option is to seek a break in the island from VTrans, but this is unlikely to be granted. Mr. Carroll said his large F-350 truck can make the U-turn. Dave Marshall pointed out eventually as the lots develop there will be connectivity. The existing paved surfaces complete the connection nearly three-quarters of the way now. Jody Carriere, traffic consultant, pointed out the lumber yard is a local business that has been in the location for a while so people know how to get there and know about the turnaround at IDX.  There is not a safety issue.
 
Susan Morse, wildlife expert, noted the following about the proposed development:
Ø  There should not be a single house on the site due to disturbance to the bobcat. The impact of houses on bobcat is terrible. Much hard work to try to conserve the property has occurred with the Carroll family and Shelburne Natural Resources Committee. The Northeast Wilderness Trust is involved to hold the easement on the land and help with fund raising. Ms. Morse is working pro bono because of her deep belief in the crucial need to conserve the site, especially for the bobcat.
Ø  There are bobcats in residence using the cliffs as security habitat, rendezvous habitat during breeding, and thermal habitat in winter.
Ø  The site is an interdependent ecosystem for wildlife and plants and any disturbance in any way would be a disaster.
Ø  Development of the site will allow more invasive plants.
Ø  The small woods are symbolic and connected to other core habitats to the east, south and north. The site still functions for bobcat and other wildlife in Shelburne. If the site is lost, other habitats will suffer or disappear.  Animals travel under Route 7 via the LaPlatte River corridor.  Human activity on the site should be minimized. There should be no houses, period. The site functions now, but any development will create a regime of damage.
Ø  The Carroll family has the willingness to make conserving the land work even though this impacts their plans to live there and potentially impacts their business space. The Carroll family has made adjustments to work with the conservation group(s).
Ø  Ms. Morse said her vision and preference is that Northeast Wilderness Trust holds the easement and that the land not be open to public recreation because the rare plants and animals, especially bobcat, cannot be protected with people and dogs on the site.
Ø  Five different bobcats have been documented in the region. Bobcat range is 10-15 square miles with good habitat or 20-30 square miles with poor habitat. Tom cats (male bobcat) have a larger range than females.  Bobcats are remarkably flexible, but quintessentially wild. Development can push them over the edge and they cannot recover.
Ø  On the Carroll property there is an unusual plant community for Vermont (shagbark, hickory, yellow oak, and others). There are also invasive species. There are thriving communities of wildlife including turkey, flying squirrel, red squirrel, grey squirrel, and bats using the south and southwest facing cliffs.
 
Laurie Smith asked what the best configuration of the four housing lots should be if the conservation deal falls through and the development proceeds. Susan Morse stated the houses should be located along Route 7 and as close to the road as possible though Ms. Morse said she has witnessed a female bobcat hunting a rabbit by the road. Building houses on the site will impact the rare plant. The ecological distance effect occurs in the distance from the road into the woods and looks at the impact on animals, birds, and plants. David Conard suggested a permit condition that says there should be some delay in applying for building permits for the lots. Patrick O’Brien agreed this can be discussed.  Laurie Smith mentioned relocating the building envelopes as an option.
 
Dave Marshall, civil engineer, discussed storm water management and noted:
v  The land form drains toward Route 7 and the retention ponds are located at the low point.
v  The ponds are designed to state standards, comply with state and VTrans rules, and utilize available area without reorganizing what is existing on the site.
v  There is a significant amount of green space that is mandated and will be used in the storm water management system.
v  Alternatives, such as rain gardens and bio-retention systems, are good, but they do not have the surface area without a significant change in the character of the area. Three times the space of the retention pond would be needed. Also, roots have to be regularly cleaned out to avoid a clogged system.
v  Another alternative is permeable pavement which is very expensive and would require under drains under the pavement due to the soil types.
v  An alternate pond design was investigated (micro-pool with a smaller pond at the outlet end).
v  The size of the pond is determined by the storm water runoff from the new facility and future use of lots 4 & 5. Essentially the pond by Jelly Mill and 2/3 of the other pond on Route 7 are needed for potential future development on the three lower lots.
v  Once impervious area is created, storm water infrastructure is needed.
v  The ponds will have grass lined edges. One pond is four to six feet below the surface and the other pond is six to eight feet below the surface. The ponds are essentially a hole in the ground (no berms).
 
Jeff Pauza asked if a fence around the pond will be needed. Dave Marshall stated per state standard a fence or safety benches in the pond are needed depending on the depth of the pond.  The pond is designed to work with the land.
 
Peter Keelan asked if the entire storm water infrastructure will be built if capacity is not yet needed. Dave Marshall said the property owners will make that decision. Mr. Keelan asked about expanding the two basins closer to Lot 1 and decreasing the size of the basin closer to Route 7. Dave Marshall stated the predevelopment watershed area must be respected so there are three basins to replicate predevelopment conditions.
 
Charlie Proutt, landscape architect, showed a rendering of the proposed access road on the site. There will be 200 evergreen trees planted. There was discussion of the lot layout and meeting the requirements of a PUD. The proposal is a six lot PUD with one commercial building, four single family homes, and the remaining land. There was discussion of whether the subdivision can be done legally per the ordinance. Patrick O’Brien assured a plan showing the lots subdivided can be drawn.
 
There was discussion of removal of buildings. David Conard noted SHP&DRC recommended the buildings remain until there is another planned use. Mr. Conard said he would like a building demolition plan that addresses the issue of buildings bisected by a property line if the subdivision of the lower lots moves forward.
 
John Adams will draft conditions of approval for the meeting on June 20, 2012.
 
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, submitted an environmental map from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources showing sensitive areas on the site. Ms. Albert pointed out the map says the area is an unusual ecosystem.  Ms. Albert confirmed Shelburne Natural Resources Committee is willing to continue working with Susan Morse on conserving the land. Gail Albert asked about drainage from the property and impact on the LaPlatte River. Dave Marshall stated there is a portion of the property that drains toward the LaPlatte River. The remainder drains toward Monroe Brook which is an impaired waterway and that puts another level of standard on the storm water management. The state standard for water quality and peak flow will be met for the 50 year standard so the river will have an additional level of protection.
 
There were no further comments.
 
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Preliminary Plan, Subdivision, Six Commercial and Four Residential Lots, 4484, 2055, 4188, and 4190 Shelburne Road, Rice Lumber Co. (SUB11-07)
MOTION by Laurie Smith, SECOND by Peter Keelan, to continue the Preliminary Plan review of SUB11-07 for a subdivision at 4484, 2055, 4188, and 4190 Shelburne Road by Rice Lumber Co. until June 20, 2012 and to direct staff to draft conditions of approval for review. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
4.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 16, 2012
Postponed.
 
5.         OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
None.
 
6.         ADJOURNMENT and/or DELIBERATIVE SESSION
MOTION by Jeff Pauza, SECOND by Laurie Smith, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
 
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM.
 
RScty: MERiordan

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

November 2013







P.O. Box 88
5420 Shelburne Road
Shelburne, VT 05482
phone: 802-985-5110
fax: 802-985-9550


Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes