Planning Commsission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 8, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairperson; Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Kay Kraushaar, Fred Schmidt. (Chris Neme was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner

OTHERS PRESENT: Michelle Holland, Tucker Holland, Christopher Senesac, Michael Senesac, Michael Gamach, Ed Fitzpatrick, David Marshall, Adam Portz, Terry Boyle, Loren Palmer, Jeff Nick, Sue Davis (Shelburne News).

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of 04/24/03
2. Design Review Application – Town of Shelburne/Shelburne Baseball, 5420 Shelburne Road (DR03-03)
3. Final Plan Review – Meach Cove Real Estate Trust, 109 Colonel Fletcher Road (SUB03—6)
4. Sketch Plan Review – T. Hudson & M. Holland/R. & C. Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07)
5. Final Plan Review Continuance – Rice Realty Co./Ethan Allen Holdings LLC, Route 7 (SUB01-4)
6. Other Business, Correspondence
7. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Peterson, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

MOTION by Mr. Gignoux, seconded by Ms. White, to approve the minutes of 04/24/03 as written. VOTE: all ayes except one abstention (Mr. Peterson); motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW – TOWN OF SHELBURNE/SHELBUNE BASEBALL, 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR03-03)
Mr. Peterson noted that the Shelburne Baseball representative had not arrived. Mr. Fitzpatrick requested that the final plan review for Rice Realty Company be moved up to replace the baseball review agenda item. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Palmer had indicated that he would be attending the final plan review, and should be given the opportunity to do so. [Note: The Commission addressed the applications in order of the agenda, however, if an applicant was not present, the Commission moved onto the next item on the agenda. These minutes reflect the order in which the hearings occurred.]

3. FINAL PLAN REVIEW – MEACH COVE REAL ESTATE TRUST, 109 COLONEL FLETCHER ROAD (SUB03-06) David Marshall, Civil Engineer Associates, appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Marshall reviewed the proposed subdivision sketch plan of the existing parcel off Bostwick Road into two lots (one lot of 5.02 acres and a second lot of 457 acres). The proposed lot configuration, railroad right-of-way, wetland locations, and viewscape from the lots were also reviewed. The existing five-bedroom house will be replaced with a new four-bedroom house. There is a letter from Alan Huizenga, consulting engineer for the town, regarding wastewater disposal (revised plans were submitted utilizing three trenches in the mound system within 10 percent of each other). The proposed subdivision conditions requiring Planning Commission approval with regard to being able to sell the five-acre parcel were addressed. A site plan rendering was discussed that gave an overall visual impact from Lake Champlain, grade rises, forested areas, and house locations which would be sited within the forested area in the background to mimic the same characteristics as the existing Noonan House.

STAFF REPORT
Dean Pierce said that the Natural Resources Committee discussed the project at their last meeting. No comments were forwarded. The proposal was not sent back to the Paths Committee and would not be used as a vehicle to include paths conditions. Lot #1 on the Plat Plan would not be conveyed separately from Lot #2 without permission from the Planning Commission. Approval should be conditioned.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Subdivision Final Plan, Meach Cove Real Estate Trust, 109 Colonel Fletcher Road (SUB03-06)
MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Gignoux, to grant Final Plan approval to the Meach Cove Real Estate Trust for a proposal to subdivide an existing parcel into two lots, to remove an existing residential building, and to construct a new residence as shown on the plans submitted with the following conditions:
1. Plans are addressed to respond to the comments included in Alan Huizenga’s letter, dated April 22, 2003.
2. Lot #1 can not be conveyed separately from Lot #2 without review and approval from the Planning Commission.
VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

5. FINAL PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE – RICE REALTY CO./ETHAN ALLEN HOLDINGS LLC, ROUTE 7 (SUB01-4) Ed Fitzpatrick, Christopher Senesac, Michael Senesac and Michael Gamach appeared on behalf of the application.

STAFF REPORT
Dean Pierce reported following the continuance of the last Planning Commission meeting (04/24/03), discussion of options in respect to the request by Mr. Palmer for a 60’ right-of-way to his land-locked property abutting the proposed Rice Realty subdivision were held with the applicant’s engineer, Town Attorney, Rice Realty attorney, and Mr. Palmer. A staff recommendation was not included in the written Staff Report to avoid any adverse impact on the discussions. Subsequent to the issuance of the staff report, it has become clear to staff the applicants feel they are not in position to oblige the request. Furthermore, it has become clear to staff that Mr. Palmer is not interested in modifying the request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission not modify the draft motion to include a 60-foot right-of-way.

APPICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated Mr. Palmer had not contacted Rice Realty in two years regarding a request for a right-of-way, and if the request were granted, it would necessitate incorporating the Palmer parcel into the Act 250 application, which Rice Realty was not prepared to do. There was mention of the common boundaries and a burdensome cliff where a road could not be constructed. A title search showed Mr. Palmer conveyed a parcel to the Nature Conservancy and probably neglected to convey a right-of-way. Mr. Palmer retained a right-of-way in the Town records for a southern parcel that he conveyed to Shelburne Realty Company, but the paragraphs were crossed out. The Nature Conservancy should be contacted for more information. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he did not research the northern parcel.

Mike Senesac commented that he had Mike Burke investigate putting in a road. Mike Burke explained that if town standards were used for a road grade, the resulting road would be 3% grade for 50’ then 8% with a 20’ high road bed (not practical). Mr. Palmer said he had driven a vehicle down there and walked the cliff many times. The only logical way to get to the property was across the railroad tracks, but that will not happen. There was further discussion regarding access to the cliff and safety concerns (people falling or rocks being thrown from the cliff). Mr. Palmer agreed this was a liability, and asked if fencing the cliff had been discussed (installed to conserve the natural features). Mr. Palmer reiterated the 60’ right-of-way which benefit the adjoining landowner versus a 10’ footpath easement. Mr. Fitzpatrick recalled there were several discussions regarding the cliff, which resulted in a fence for safety. If there were any changes, then all safety issues would be problem for the developer versus Mr. Palmer. A footpath would require insurance with indemnity. Christopher Senesac said they would consider a non-motorized footpath conveyed to Town.

PUBLIC INPUT
Gail Albert, Natural Resource Committee member, said that the committee met Tuesday, 05/06/03, and could not support Mr. Palmer’s request for a 60-foot right-of-way.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
PRD Final Plan, Rice Realty/Ethan Allen Holdings, Route 7 (SUB01-4)
MOTION by Ms. White, seconded by Mr. Schmidt, to grant Final Plan review to Ethan Allen Holdings, LLC for a planned residential development consisting of 25 single family lots and a lot with 37 multi-family units as presented in the plans submitted with the following conditions:
1. prior to filing a mylar, the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents for the dedication and transfer of road, sewer, water, stormwater improvements, for the maintenance of open space, and for maintaining the affordability of the proposed affordable housing units over time;
2. prior to filing a mylar, plans for the maintenance of the project’s stormwater detention basins and associated legal documents shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney;
3. prior to filing a mylar, any other documents shall be revised, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney;
4. prior to filing a mylar, plans must be modified to incorporate the accommodation of building footing drains and the relocation of the catch basin currently at 6+30;
5. prior to commencing construction, a pre-construction meeting will be held between the developer, his engineer and contractor, and town staff; additional meetings will be held as requested by town staff during construction (e.g. following large storm events);
6. project build-out must take place at a rate of no more than 15 units per “permit year” (where “permit year” is defined as the year starting on the date the first permit is issued); limited ‘banking’ of units is permissible, however, in no permit year shall more than 22 units be constructed;
7. prior to filing a mylar, plans for the design of the northern access, including the intersection with the future access from The Commons property, must be revised to the satisfaction of the Town’s consulting engineer and Town staff;
8. no more than 30 units shall be built until after the northerly access is constructed; if VTrans does not complete the improvements at the Longmeadow intersection, the applicant is authorized by the Planning Commission to complete these improvements according to VTrans standards (the applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of the new intersection at Webster Road);
9. there shall be no cutting of live, healthy trees greater than 2” dbh on the side and rear setbacks; trees in the front yard setback shall be saved whenever possible;
10. street lights shall be downshielded metal halide fixtures rather than sodium vapor fixtures;
11. the applicant shall provide copies of all state permits that have not been directly sent to the Town of Shelburne to insure all approvals are consistent with local approvals;
12. a note shall be added to the site plan to indicate that the Town of Shelburne will not take over the water lines(s) in the multifamily unit area;
13. the proposed sidewalk shall be extended to Route 7 during roadway construction;
14. the landscape plan shall be revised and submitted for staff review and approval to show the trees on the north access to be a salt tolerant/resistant variety (not White Pine).
VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

4. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – T. HUDSON & M. HOLLAND/R. & C. STILLER, 2232 HARBOR ROAD (SUB03-07) Terry Boyle, T. J. Boyle and Associates, appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Boyle explained existing topographic conditions and three proposed building lots, one common/open space lot, a leach field to support 10-12 bedrooms, and a possible site for four more bedrooms. The application is a PRD. Site plan photographs were submitted showing varied lots and building envelopes that protected views. A photographic rendering was submitted with overlay areas from Town records, views and characteristics of the site, proposed development on the hill, Lot #2 vegetation (hardwood) which was removed. Photographs of the following were viewed:
• Lot #1 with a one and one-half story home would most likely be visible, and was located on an existing driveway. The house would be tucked into evergreens and additional plantings were planned.
• Lot #2 home site would be tucked into the trees, the driveway on Lot #2 and Lot #4 was removed.
• Lot #3 was tucked below a northeast hill and not visible from Harbor Road.
• The location of a cedar tree was noted as well as mapped vegetation, conserved open land, historic barn and fence, and a bike path. Homes would be pushed into evergreens as far as possible. Most views from the house lots were northeast toward the water.

STAFF REPORT
Dean Pierce noted there was a limitation on how close a house could be located to the northern boundary. Mr. Pierce also stated the Natural Resources Committee reviewed the project. There were no written comments provided by the committee, however, aesthetics had been identified as a key issue, with agricultural soils identified as a secondary issue. Some committee members were of the opinion that the project should contain two building lots rather than three.

Mr. Boyle stated the house was moved more than 100’ from the boundary, and houses were proposed on Lots #1 and #3, with Lot #2 retained for future sale. Mr. Pierce pointed out the parcel was used for a community garden in past and asked if there were agricultural soils on the parcel. Mr. Boyle replied that the parcel had been mowed periodically. The intent was to keep the land open. Hilda White recalled that she had gardened below proposed Lot #2 prior to 1980, but there was no water. Mr. Boyle noted the Stiller house foundation was buried, but the barn still existed.

Fred Schmidt asked if the houses would be hidden from the town path. Mr. Boyle said that the home sites were modulated by plantings. The path was 1200’ from the proposed homes, winding in and out of vegetation.

There was further discussion of the following:
• Building envelopes should be staked before a site visit.
• The northern most driveway was inappropriate and unsafe. A main driveway to all three lots made more sense (Mr. Boyle noted that the Hollands wanted an option to access Harbor Road directly as well as the main drive. The direct access was on the top of a hill with good sight lines).
• The Town walking trail and park could be augmented with a trail along the road. It was currently unsafe to walk along the road. (Mr. Boyle pointed out that the terrain along the road was a steep slope dropping to the road and a rugged hill. There was not much room behind the fence and there were evergreen plantings).

PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
PRD Sketch Plan, Hudson, Hollander, Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07)
The Planning Commission agreed to do a site visit on Monday, 5/12/03, 5:30 p.m. Mr. Boyle asked for a straw vote on the proposed PRD. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the line-of-sight, safety access, and public access, if appropriate. Mr. Boyle said currently the parcel was posted along the bike path and road frontage. The Hollands were open to community use which could be discussed at the preliminary plat level. There was further discussion of the sketch plan process prior to moving to preliminary approval, the plan being acceptable with regard to the house sites, concern about views from the lake main bay; architectural control (would be retained by the Hollands), transfer of general covenants with the exception of covenants between Hudson and Stiller, inclusion of trail easements for discussion (Hollands are open to discussion), and covenants so the lower field remains and is maintained agricultural/meadow. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the three house sites were appropriate for the parcel and open space.

MOTION by Ms. Kraushaar, seconded by Mr. LaPierre, to adjourn the public hearing on the sketch plan for subdivision of an existing 32 acre parcel into 3 building lots and a single common land lot located in the Rural 1 district, and to schedule a site visit Monday, 05/12/03, at 5:30 p.m. with the applicant marking the building envelopes prior to the site visit. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. LaPierre, to continue the hearing for sketch plan review of the subdivision of an existing 32 acre parcel into 3 building lots and a single common land lot located in the Rural 1 district on 05/22/03. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

5. DESIGN REVIEW – TOWN OF SHELBURNE/SHELBURNE BASEBALL, 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR03-03)
Jeff Nick, Shelburne Baseball representative, appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Jeff Nick reviewed the proposal to place sponsorship signs on the dugouts. The baseball group has raised $1,500. There would be a total of four signs on the dugouts. The 1’x 2’ signs would have a white background, black lettering, and a black border. Two signs would face north and two would face east. The Design Review Board granted approval for a seasonal one-year trial. The signs would not be permanent. Successful fund raising would provide $3,500 per year for maintenance of the outfield signs.

STAFF REPORT
Dean Pierce clarified that the DRB approved a one-year seasonal trial with the expectation that a long term plan for all signs would be forwarded. If there were no objections to the signs, then the signs would stay for the summer and be removed at the end of the season.

Hilda White asked for an explanation of proposed landscaping. Mr. Pierce replied that due to the location of a drainage ditch between the outfield fence and scoreboard posts, the landscaping was removed as a condition of approval. A long-term expansion plan must be submitted within a year regarding the use of signs.

DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review (Signs on Dugouts), Shelburne Baseball, 5420 Shelburne Rd. (DR03-03)
MOTION by Mr. Gignoux, seconded by Ms. Kraushaar, to grant design review approval to Shelburne Baseball and the Town of Shelburne for the installation of four signs to be mounted on dugouts at the Shelburne Municipal complex, subject to the following conditions:
1. Signs shall be painted white with black or dark green lettering and a black border;
2. The signs shall be constructed as presented and mounted on the gable ends of the dugouts.
3. Approval applies for a one year period after which the design and placement of signs must be reviewed as part of a signage master plan for the site;
4. The condition of approval requiring landscaping around the bottom of the posts that support the baseball scoreboard is hereby removed.

AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Mr. Gignoux, seconded by Mr. LaPierre, that the signs be no larger than 1’x 2’ and be removed prior to the opening of school.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

6. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
Planning forms
Mr. Schmidt reported that planning forms were e-mailed to Planning Commission members on Monday, 05/05/03. Hard copies were passed out and must be returned by Thursday, 05/15/03. All previous Planning Directors were contacted with one exception.

STAT
Mr. Pierce said that the STAT program would meet for a potluck dinner at the Teddy Bear Factory Friday, 05/09/03. Planning Commission members should participate. A written foundation document report would be presented.

7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Gignoux, seconded by Ms. White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.

----

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 22, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Kay Kraushaar, Chris Neme. (Rick Peterson and Fred Schmidt were absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Anderson, Hudson Holland, Michael Dussault, Eric Morris, Mike Burke, Adam Portz, Randy Rowland, Jeremy Matosky, David Webster.

AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes of May 8, 2003 2. Design Review Application, Jeff & Lauren Lawson, 1007 Falls Road (DR02-17) 3. Site Plan Review, Eparchy of St. Maron of Brooklyn, d/b/a St. Rafka Center, 6420 Hinesburg Road (SP03-03) 4. Preliminary Plan Review, Swenson Land and Cattle, LLC, 1260 Pond Road (SUB03-04) 5. Site Plan Review, Truman Webster Family Trust/David Webster, 15 Falls Road (SP03-04) 6. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, T.Hudson & M.Holland/R&C Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07) 7. Other Business, Correspondence 8. Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Rick Peterson, Chairperson, Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes of May 8, 2003 MOTION by Hilda White, seconded by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the minutes of 5/8/03 with the following corrections: Page 2, 1st paragraph, 7th line – clarify to read “…mound systems whose flows are within 10% of each other.”; Page 3, 2nd paragraph from bottom of page, 3rd line up - delete “versus Mr. Palmer”; Page 7, Applicant Comments, last line – delete “of the outfield signs”. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW, JEFF & LAUREN LAWSON, 1007 FALLS ROAD (DR02-17) Dean Pierce reported the applicant is not present due to a change in their site plan which requires a hearing before the Design Review Committee with the amended plan.

3. SITE PLAN REVIEW, EPARCHY OF ST. MARON OF BROOKLYN, d/b/a ST. RAFKA CENTER, 6420 HINESBURG ROAD (SP03-03) Dean Pierce reported a request for continuance was submitted by the applicant. MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to continue the site plan review of the application by the St. Rafka Center, 6420 Hinesburg Road (SP03-03) until June 12, 2003. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

4. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW, SWENSON LAND AND CATTLE, LLC, 1260 POND ROAD (SUB03-04) Claude LaPierre recused himself from the Planning Commission. Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Burke stated the site plan addresses velocity ratios, trail easement to Pond Road along the hedgerow, Lot #8 being accessible from Pond Road (as well as the new gravel road, Frogs End, and Hinesburg Road; there is a farm road to Lot #8), revised building envelope on Lot #7 (will not disturb existing trees), relocated and shortened driveway for Lot #6 for less impact on agricultural land, a 20’ wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac for Lots #4 and #5 per the Shelburne Fire Chief’s request, a dry hydrant in Shelburne Pond per discussions with the Fire Chief (due to shallowness of Shelburne Pond near the shoreline, a long suction line would be needed to get to sufficient depth; freezing of the line in winter as well as impact on sensitive areas are issues). Mr. Burke noted there is a pond on Lot #1 with adequate water volume (250 gallons per minute for two hours), but there is not a watershed to replenish the pond (the pond has always had water in it). The issue of a fire pond still needs to be resolved, stated Mr. Burke. Driveway locations with the proposed building envelopes were reviewed as well as the well water supply and location of the on-site septic systems (and replacement systems). Existing screening will block the full view of the buildings, stated Mr. Burke, and with controlled tree cutting, the screening will be maintained through construction. No clear cutting will be specified in the deeds. The 20’ easement on Hinesburg Road for the town bike path is acceptable, however, the existing barn is within the 20’ space. It is suggested to decrease the width of the right-of-way by the barn. Mike Burke addressed school impact from the development. The school department feels every project, large and small, has potential impact on the school system. It is estimated an average of 4.5 school-aged children will be generated by the project. It is likely the entire project will not be built in one year, however, with a project this size (small), phasing will be a hardship due to the high infrastructure costs to be incurred upfront. It is expected the project will be complete in a couple of years. The septic systems are designed for four bedrooms per house (house size is around 3,000 s.f.), and the 1997 septic rules adopted by the town will be followed.

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce suggested the applicant provide the Fire Chief with information on water on the site throughout the year to determine what is needed for fire protection. Mr. Pierce also suggested the Commission request more information on the placement of the building envelope on Lot #7, and 10’ easement for the walking trail. It was noted the Selectboard is still discussing on-site septic standards (adopting the revised standards from the state or keeping those in place in the town). Regarding the walking trail easement, Mike Burke stated the Recreation Committee has not contacted the applicant as yet, but it is felt 10’ wide is adequate for a walking trail. Anything more than pedestrian use is inappropriate on the site because the fields will be in agricultural use with farm equipment in operation. There is a tree line that naturally marks the pedestrian trail. Reg Gignoux mentioned typically people cut corners on a trail, rather than going straight into a right angle turn. There was discussion of the 20’ bike path easement on Hinesburg Road. The Commission supported decreasing the 20’ width by the barn. Chris Neme asked what will happen if the Selectboard does not adopt the revised on-site septic rules. Mike Burke stated the septic systems on the site will be enlarged and the proposed treatment process would not be used (even though this is superior to the treatment process in the 1996 regulations). Dean Pierce stated the Town Engineer will review the on-site septic system issue. Chris Neme asked about the landscaping berm on Lot #3. Mike Burke stated the berm will be a windbreak and add variation to the landscape so the building appears in the background. With careful planning, continued Mr. Burke, there are enough existing trees to screen the buildings. PUBLIC COMMENTS Randy Rolland, adjacent property owner, expressed concern about preservation of the woods to the north and northeast to screen the houses on higher ground. Mike Burke noted there are existing second growth trees and a hedgerow for screening. The houses will be built in the lower areas, not on the ridge. Mr. Rolland asked about the difference between a walking path and bike path. Mike Burke stated the applicant opposes a wider, paved bike path on the property like the town bike path, but is proposing a pedestrian path. A bike path along Hinesburg Road (in the town easement) is acceptable. Dean Pierce stated a multi-use path going north to south through town is depicted in the town plan. There was additional discussion of a higher level use path and being eligible for federal funding versus the more primitive path proposed by the applicant. Mr. Rolland noted he did not receive notice of the meeting and will provide staff with his correct mailing address. Jeremy Maclowski, adjacent landowner, asked about the multiple building envelopes on Lot #7 and drainage from the driveway cut. Mike Burke stated the Fire Chief reviewed the plans and location of the driveways. The driveway as proposed will allow for drainage. There is a high degree of sheet run-off that occurs presently. It is likely the house on Lot #7 will be built on the back lot rather than the road lot. Mr. Maclowski asked about cutting restrictions (not shown on plan) and enforcement, and meeting the standards for wastewater. The Planning Commission will draft a condition of approval relative to tree cutting, and there will be language on the site plan and in the deeds. Also, neighbors will likely monitor the situation to ensure the developer follows the site plan. Regarding wastewater and meeting standards of 24”, groundwater monitoring was done and 18” was the level. There was further discussion of the requirement for a fire pond (other developments in the area have not installed the same), size of the building envelopes (to allow flexibility, preserve open and agricultural land), frontage on Hinesburg Road (with PRD can have less than 400’; the project has over 200’ of frontage), road specifications (are specifications for width and base material, but the Planning Commission has approved narrower roads for some developments), and the view of houses Lots #2 and #3 (site limitations keep house mainly in the wooded area, but the envelopes can be trimmed back to ensure the houses are hidden). Mike Burke agreed to show a representative model of the house footprint. Mr. Maclowski asked that the location of the building envelopes on Lot #7 be reviewed and moved to the south if possible.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Preliminary Plan Review, Swenson Land & Cattle, 1260 Pond Road (SUB03-04) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, seconded by Chris Neme, to continue preliminary plan review of the 8-lot subdivision of property owned by Swenson Land and Cattle, LLC, located at 1260 Pond Road until June 26, 2003. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission.

5. SITE PLAN REVIEW, TRUMAN WEBSTER FAMILY TRUST/DAVID WEBSTER, 15 FALLS ROAD (SP03-04) David Webster appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS David Webster explained his proposal to change to retail on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor of the building at 15 Falls Road (formerly a restaurant use).

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce noted the traffic from the retail use is expected to be one-third of the traffic generated by an upscale restaurant use (7.5 trips per 1,000 s.f. to 2.6 trips per 1,000 s.f.). There was discussion of the sign above the porch. A change in the sign requires review and a permit. Maintenance on the sign does not require review.

PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan Review, David Webster, 15 Falls Road (SP03-04) MOTION by Hilda White, seconded by Chris Neme, to grant site plan approval to David Webster for a change in commercial use (from restaurant to retail and apartment) at 15 Falls Road as depicted on plans submitted with the following conditions: 1. All exterior lighting shall be in conformance with Shelburne Zoning Bylaws; 2. Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s Office (this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions). VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

6. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, T. HUDSON & M. HOLLAND/R. & C. STILLER, 2232 HARBOR ROAD (SUB03-07) Mike Holland and Adam Portz appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Adam Portz explained the proposal for subdivision of a 32-acre parcel. Access to Lot #1 will be from the northern most entry point. The remaining lots will be accessed by the barn. Sight distance is approximately 400’ in both directions. Impact to scenic areas and visual resources will be mitigated with the location of the building envelopes. Mr. Portz noted the applicant is willing to work with the town on an easement on Lot #4 or around Lot #3 for a bike path. Mr. Holland pointed out what was thought to be the southern boundary is not the natural southern boundary of the property. As a result, the path would go through open land, but it is not desirable to disturb the character of the open land to accommodate a path. It is not known if the neighbor, Mr. Cabot, would be willing to have the path on his property. Reg Gignoux asked if the path could be on the northern boundary. Mr. Holland agreed this is a possibility, but there is the issue of privacy to consider due to the proximity to the building envelope. Kay Kraushaar observed the path proposed to cross the property does not connect with the town path system.. Hilda White pointed out a path along the road is needed. The town path is well defined along the road. Dean Pierce referenced the Recreation Area and Bike Path Feasibility Study done in 1985 which notes an on-road facility in the vicinity of the applicant’s property.

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce urged getting a view of the building envelopes from the lake to see the impact on the viewscape. Regarding traffic, the Commission may want additional analysis by a traffic engineer. There was further discussion of access to the property and visibility (sight distances). Chris Neme asked for clarification of the Natural Resources Committee comments on Lot #3. Mr. Holland stated the applicant will build on Lot #1, retain ownership of Lot #3 (if economics allow), and oversee construction on Lot #3. There was discussion of whether the application is for a two-lot or three-lot subdivision. Mr. Holland noted there could be four buildable lots on the parcel, but the applicant felt this would be too much. The houses on Lots #1 and #3 would be about 3,000 s.f. while the structure on Lot #2 is envisioned to be a two or three bedroom cottage (half the size of the houses on the other lots). There are covenants on portions of the property prohibiting any development.

PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments from the public on the application.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Sketch Plan Continuance, Holland/Hudson/Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant sketch plan approval for the subdivision as a PRD of a 32-acre parcel at 2232 Harbor Road into three building lots of four to seven acres each plus a single common land lot subject to the following conditions and items required for preliminary plat review: 1. an erosion control and stormwater management plan; 2. a viewshed/visibility analysis depicting the view of the site from Shelburne Bay; 3. building envelopes utilized by the project shall be as presented to the Planning Commission on May 22, 2003; 4. a sewage disposal plan reviewed and approved by a professional engineer with detailed description of any plans for combined septic systems; 5. input from emergency service providers, the recreation department, and the schools regarding their ability to serve the project; 6. information regarding any homeowners association to be created; 7. materials describing the management objectives for and maintenance of open space; 8. a proposal for an easement along the east side of Harbor Road extending along the length of the property for a bike/pedestrian path. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

7. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Forest Park Realty (O’Brien) Extension Dean Pierce reported a three-month extension was granted to Pat O’Brien due to delay from archeological studies being conducted on his property. Fire Ponds Dean Pierce reported the Fire Chief has a plan that requires fire ponds for developments outside the town’s water district.

8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chris Neme, seconded by Hilda White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. Minutes transcribed from videotape and respectfully submitted by M.Riordan, Recording Secretary.