Planning Commsission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2003

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

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT: Terri Price, Emily Morrow, Persis G. Post, Gracey Bradley, Jan Abbott, Anne Timmerman, Rose Mary Kollmer, Kate Lieber, Dorothy Lowe, Yvonne Brodel, Kendall Kellar, Marjorie Sands, Jon Pizzalam, Mark Issenman, Flo Meiler, Gerald Francis, Donald Johnstone, Rebecca Stearns, Hank Warren, Carole Vasta-Folley, Sean Folley, Nancy Warren, Gregg Beldock, George Faris, Dave Marshall, Mark Neagley, Michael Dussault, Adam Portz, Tucker Holland, Linda Vail. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (7/10/03 & 8/14/03) 2. Design Review Application, Holly Brough & Sean MacFaden, 62 Wes Road (DR03-16) 3. Design Review application, Enoch & Marie Thompkins/Terri Price, 959 Falls Road (DR03-17) 4. PUD Sketch Plan Review, Burlington Drive-In Theater Inc./Bullrock Corporation/Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community LLC/Lake Champlain Transportation Corp., 185 Pine Haven Shore Road (SUB98-6R2) 5. Final Plan Review, T&M Holland/R&C Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07) 6. Boundary Line Adjustment, S&C Folley/S&K Moore, 87 and 85 Harvest Lane (BLA03-03) 7. Site Plan Amendment, Town of Shelburne/Lake Champlain Housing Development Corp. (Duncan Wisniewski Architecture), 5404 Shelburne Road, Noonan House (SP00-4R3) 8. PRD Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Shelburne Cliffs Partnership/Benchmark Shelburne Senior Housing LLC, 333 Morgan Drive (SUB03-05) 9. Other Business, Correspondence 10. Adjournment [Note: the minutes reflect the order of the printed agenda.]

1. CALL TO ORDER Rick Peterson, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., and announced the site plan amendment pertaining to the Noonan House has been withdrawn by the applicant. Minutes JULY 10, 2003 MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Chris Neme, to approve the 7/10/03 minutes as written. VOTING: unanimous (4-0) [Claude LaPierre not present for vote]; motion carried. AUGUST 14, 2003 MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Chris Neme, to approve the 8/14/03 minutes as written. VOTING: unanimous (4-0) [Claude LaPierre not present for vote]; motion carried.

2. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, HOLLY BROUGH & SEAN MACFADEN, 62 WES ROAD (DR03-16) Holly Brough appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Brough explained the plan to replace the picture window in the front of the house with a bay window. No other changes are proposed.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/28/03.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review for Bay Window at 62 Wes Road, Brough/MacFaden (DR03-16) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Chris Neme, to grant design plan approval to Holly Brough and Sean MacFaden for a proposal to replace a picture window with a bay window at 62 Wes Road in accordance with the materials presented. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

3. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, ENOCH & MARIE THOMPKINS/TERRI PRICE, 959 FALLS ROAD (DR03-17) Terri Price appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Price explained the plan to expand the existing laundry room to include a bathroom, and replace the window on the east side of the house with wood siding to match the existing siding on the house.

STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/28/03.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review for Expansion of Laundry Room and Replacement of Window with Wood Siding at 959 Falls Road, Thompkins/Price (DR03-17) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant design plan approval to Terri Price et al for a proposal to replace a window with siding at property at 959 Falls Road in accordance with the materials presented. VOTING: unanimous (4-0) [Claude LaPierre not present for vote]; motion carried.

4. PUD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, BURLINGTON DRIVE-IN THEATER INC./BULLROCK CORPORATION/SHELBURNE BAY SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY LLC/LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSPORTATION CORP., 185 PINE HAVEN SHORE ROAD (SUB98-6R2) Dave Marshall, George Faris, and Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, explained the submitted site plan is a PUD which requires a 150’ setback from Route 7 and creates more flexibility. The original site plan was submitted as a PRD. Lake Champlain Transportation is a co-applicant and is willing to provide an additional 50.2’ of frontage in order to meet the 150’ setback requirement. With the PUD, the new buildings are lowered, and the emergency access to the proposed additions is relocated to the south side of the structure. Acreage (9.8 acres) was deeded to Mr. Goldberg so the property is compliant with lot coverage. The boundary line may have to be amended to comply with the 50’ buffer requirement. George Faris, legal counsel for the applicant, stated all the neighbors were notified of the hearing before the Planning Commission. There was also a meeting held with the neighbors to hear concerns. The main concerns are the height of the building on the north side, and potential damage to vegetation on the north boundary line. The applicant feels the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed by the lowering of the building wings (proposed additions) on each side (north and south) of the existing building. The attorney representing the neighbors also indicated the concerns of his client have been addressed with the proposal, stated Mr. Faris. STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce asked about the boundary adjustment. Gregg Beldock stated the 24’ setback will be 50’. There will be .6 of an acre remaining. Dean Pierce clarified according to the Town Attorney in reference to the triangle parcel cited to meet the frontage requirement, with a properly structured lease, this parcel might be able to be included as part of the lot for purposes of frontage. What will happen with the land owned by Lake Champlain Transportation must be known. Options for the Planning Commission regarding the frontage issue include ignoring the impact of the small parcel (.05 acre), doing a boundary line adjustment to provide frontage in exchange for an area of land to Lake Champlain Transportation (LCT), or having LCT go through the Zoning Board for a ruling on the change from one non-conforming use to another (since only .05 acre is involved, the change is not materially making the use more nonconforming). The current use on LCT property is pre-existing and non-conforming. Each lot owned by LCT (bowling alley and mobile home park) would still have adequate frontage. George Faris interjected the issue is not about use, but about lot size. Dean Pierce noted his density calculation is different from the applicant’s density calculation, and the Planning Commission must confirm the acceptance of the parking requirement waiver which will allow the applicant to show only 81 parking spaces on the plan instead of 112 parking spaces per the requirement of one parking space per living unit. Dave Marshall pointed out there are parking spaces on the site currently not being used. Rick Peterson asked if elderly housing is a permitted use in a PRD as opposed to a PUD. George Faris stated the regulations say up to 18 units in a PRD. The application is a similar use to housing for the elderly in a PUD. Residential use is permitted in a PUD. Hilda White questioned how an addition to an existing building that is residential and is a PRD can be called a PUD when there is no industrial, commercial or mixed use which is the intention of the regulations for a PUD. Dave Marshall stated a PUD can be straight residential. Ms. White read the description of a PUD per the Shelburne regulations. George Faris pointed out there is no language in the regulations mandating a PUD to be strictly commercial. Dean Pierce stated the general convention is a PRD is residential and a PUD is mixed use. The current language in the regulations does not prohibit an application being made for a strictly residential PUD. Hilda White countered the intention of a PUD is to encourage business uses. The current application is not a just use of a PUD, stated Ms. White, adding the applicant is taking an approved PRD and making changes that do not meet the PRD requirements so the request for a less restrictive PUD is being sought. Dean Pierce noted the regulations for a PUD and PRD are separate processes to help produce better development and design, not to judge the use. Mr. Pierce suggested the hearing on the application could be continued until after the Zoning Board concludes on the question of use. Hilda White questioned whether a precedent would be set to allow an approved PRD project (approved under rigorous PRD regulations) to change at a later date and be approved under less rigorous conditions (i.e. as a PUD). Mr. Pierce agreed good practice is a question that could be asked, but in the context of what can legally be done under the bylaws. The regulations as written do not prohibit the PUD process being applied to a solely residential use, reiterated Mr. Pierce. Ms. White again questioned if it is acceptable to change from one set of requirements to another that is looser with the same project. Dean Pierce clarified the project under discussion is an exchange of one set of requirements for another (PRD/PUD). It could be said one is more liberal than the other. George Faris stated a PUD allows creative, flexible design. The current plan being presented meets rigorous review requirements. The dramatic setback from Route 7 remains, but the impact on Pine Haven Shore Road is decreased. The new proposal meets goals more efficiently. There is nothing in the regulations saying a PUD can not be all residential, so the application is legal, stated Mr. Faris. Hilda White pointed out PUD regulations handle truck traffic and commercial development. The 50’ buffer zone is free of building structures, parking and roadways. With a PRD, the 50’ buffer is free of construction except if a roadway is necessary for access because the development is residential. The roadway in the application is less than 50’ from the back of the property. Rick Peterson agreed a PUD is intended for mixed use development and a PRD is residential development. Chairman Peterson recalled five years ago the Shelburne Bay application was presented as a PRD because the development was residential and the bylaws said elderly housing was to be in a PRD. George Faris added 100’ of frontage on Route 7 was required five years ago, but the property owner was reluctant to approach LCT for some land at that time. Dave Marshall noted the application fit the PRD regulations, but is also a business (renting units and providing services to residents). There was further discussion of business activities on the site (employees, deliveries, services provided to residents). Dean Pierce asked about the comments from the Fire Chief regarding access. Dave Marshall stated the south access is opened more and the turning radius is adequate to the south building. Fred Schmidt asked about the surface of the road. Mr. Marshall stated there is an 18’ wide stabilized bed underneath the five foot wide bituminous walkway for residents. Fred Schmidt asked if the parking lot is ever full. Gregg Beldock testified even when there are open house events at the site, the lot is not full. Dave Marshall stated the ratio of the parking numbers and proposed living units mesh. PUBLIC INPUT Emily Morrow, resident of Pine Haven Shore Road, expressed concern about the roadway being under the drip line of the trees and possible damage to the trees. Ms. Morrow requested harm to the lot line screening be minimized. The existing large trees are the only screening to Pine Haven Shore Road. Ms. Morrow suggested the structure be moved farther to the south along with the roadway. Ms. Morrow also expressed concern about approving a PUD application for the site should the existing project fail (it was again noted the current use on the property was controversial when the PRD application was filed five years ago). A PUD would allow commercial development on the site. Ms. Morrow suggested the current application be treated as a PRD and waivers on setback requirements be granted. Gregg Beldock responded to the comments from Ms. Morrow, pointing out the original proposal for the building addition(s) was as a PRD with requests for waivers from setback requirements, but residents of Pine Haven Shore Road objected according to comments presented by Gerald Francis. Regardless, zoning of the area must be met. Mr. Beldock mentioned the length of time that transpired before hearing from the attorney representing Pine Haven Shore Road residents regarding the proposal. With regard to the tree drip line, the trees are behind Artec and will continue to grow so the drip line will move. Best effort will be made to avoid harming the trees. The screening is also a benefit for Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community. If the building is moved, the view of the lake for the senior housing residents will be impacted. George Faris explained the PRD was abandoned due to the setback and footprint requirements (otherwise the building would be tall and narrow). Persis Post, Shelburne Bay senior housing resident, testified the leaves hide the buildings. Shelburne Bay campus is lovely. There are no children to impact the schools. Residents are well treated and well behaved. Taxes are paid as well as payments for ambulance service. Ms. Post spoke of the positive relationship with the neighbors, except one incident where residents were told not to walk on Pine Haven Shore Road. Ms. Post noted the house roofs on Pine Haven Shore Road are visible to residents. Another Shelburne Bay resident pointed out people on Pine Haven Shore Road can see the factory through the trees and the factory is visible before the senior housing complex. Jan Abbott, power of attorney for her father who is a Shelburne Bay resident, stressed the value of having an assisted living facility to allow couples to remain together for a longer period of time and have a better quality of life. Other communities have assisted living facilities without adverse impact. There are no school children, taxes are paid, and residents generally do not drive. There is plenty of parking at the site. The facility is an asset to the community. Kate Lieber, Shelburne Bay resident, agreed the humane issue needs to be considered. Couples who have been together for the past 50 years can stay together with assisted living. There is no emotional or economic impact. Dorothy Lowe, Shelburne Bay resident, urged living in harmony with the neighbors and the town. Others in the audience echoed this sentiment. There was mention of walking dogs on Pine Haven Shore Road. It was clarified the issue of dogs is not the purview of the Planning Commission. Steven Booth, neighbor, spoke of the good relationship with the senior housing residents, and that adding units or developing assisted living service is not a problem. The design of the building is of concern as well as maintaining green space and trees. Mr. Booth questioned where cars will park if the amount of parking is inadequate, noting there are trucks lined up on Pine Haven Shore Road for Georgia Pacific. Gerald Francis, Pine Haven Shore Road, thanked the Planning Commission for the time extension to allow the residents to seek legal counsel and meet with the applicant. Meetings occurred immediately following the first hearing before the Planning Commission. There was not a delay, however, vacations occurred for the lawyers during the time frame. Mr. Francis stated there is support for senior housing at Shelburne Bay. Issues of density or setbacks have not been raised by the neighbors. The new design does address many of the concerns, but the neighbors did not learn of the differences between a PRD and PUD until now. Mr. Francis suggested the plan remain a PRD (residential) and waivers be granted. The project is approved as a PRD already. The building additions are of lower levels which is good. The nearness of the road to trees is a concern as is changing the project to a PUD. Mr. Francis asked about the level of assisted care and if viability studies on occupancy have been done to see if the building will be fully occupied. Gregg Beldock stated occupancy rates and viability information is private. A flexible level of care to each resident will be provided as needed until the resident can not take care of himself (then the resident will move to the next level of care, such as a nursing home). The facility is not a continuing care retirement community or a nursing home, and this was made clear when the project was first built, stated Mr. Beldock. Kendall Keller, Shelburne Bay resident, stressed the need for the assisted living facility, noting there is a waiting list at this point for any of the other existing senior facilities in the state. Hank Warren, Pine Haven Shore Lane, spoke of being good neighbors and having no objections to the senior living/assisted care facility, but pointed out there is no guarantee there will be assisted living on the site. When the project was first built, the zoning allowed 18 units. The applicant sought and received a waiver to allow 64 units which has been fine. Now, the developer is asking to change from residential zoning to PUD. Mr. Warren asked about the next evolution if the assisted care project does not work. The new units are small, the density is increasing. Mr. Warren asked about alternate uses in the future if the plan is approved as a PUD. A guarantee of assisted living and that there will be adequate parking to serve additional staff could be conditions of approval. Changing from a PRD to a PUD is a dangerous precedent, cautioned Mr. Warren. The good relationship with Shelburne Bay and having a successful project is desired by all. George Faris reiterated the request is for approval of housing for the elderly. Any change to other than elderly housing would require review and approval by the Zoning Board and Planning Commission. That is the protection to the town and neighbors. There was further discussion of PRD and PUD requirements, and granting waivers to allow more units. Mr. Faris stated approving the project as a PRD and waiving the setbacks requirements as necessary is acceptable. It was noted the application before the Planning Commission presently is for a PUD, and the application is scheduled for Zoning Board review on 9/8/03.

DELIBERATION/DECISION PUD Sketch Plan Review, Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community et al (SUB98-6R2) The Planning Commission discussed doing a site walk to review the new proposal, and delaying a decision until the Zoning Board hearing on the application. MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to do a site visit to the Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community, Pine Haven Shore Road, on 9/11/03 at 6:30 p.m. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. MOTION by Chris Neme, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to continue the application hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting on 9/11/03. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

5. FINAL PLAN REVIEW, T&M HOLLAND/R&C STILLER, 2232 HARBOR ROAD (SUB03-07) Mike Dussault and Adam Portz appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Mike Dussault stated there are no changes to the site plan. A complete plat has been submitted. Having a path on the road shoulder is the most feasible (there is 12’) due to the change in grade.

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce stated the technical feasibility of locating the path in the right-of-way has to be considered. The Paths Committee recommends obtaining easements parallel to the right-of-way for additional flexibility.

PUBLIC INPUT Bill Dunn, neighbor, agreed it is not feasible to locate a path on the east side of the property by the barn. It is better to negotiate an easement on the west side of the road (Pheasant Hill/Shelburne Farms). An easement for the water line through the field could be an alternate location for the path. Dean Pierce mentioned being too far from the road and needing easements from other property owners or having a “floating” path in a corridor if the path were to follow the water line through the field. Mr. Holland spoke in favor of granting an 8’ easement for the path, but not for a “floating” path. The town would have 12’ from the edge of pavement to the property line. The minimum width is 12’ (by the barn) to the town right-of-way which is in excess of 20’ wide. Screening along the roadway must be maintained per the deed so the town would have to replace any disturbed vegetation for the path. Mr. Dunn urged the town to accept the generous offer from the Hollands, and expressed willingness to offer an easement for a path as well. Dean Pierce will have the Paths Committee contact Mr. Dunn. The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed easement deed, and discussed having a clause regarding the town not exercising the right to an easement by the barn as long as the barn remains in the present footprint.

DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan Review, Holland/Stiller, 2232 Harbor Road (SUB03-07) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Chris Neme, to grant final plan review approval for the subdivision as a PRD of an existing 32 acre parcel into three building lots of four to seven acres each plus a single common land lot subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the Mylar for the project, the applicant shall revise the plans to remove the word “proposed” from the reference to the building envelope(s) and address any unresolved concerns identified by Town staff or the Town’s consulting engineer, including the possible need to modify the T-intersection to meet turning radius requirements for fire apparatus and to provide adequate turnaround areas. 2. Prior to recording the Mylar for the project, Planning Commission recommendations pertaining to paths as substantially set forth in the proposed easement deed presented by the applicant on 8/28/03 (titled “Proposed Easement Deed”) are incorporated into the plans and relevant legal documents, subject to review and approval by the Town Attorney. 3. Prior to filing the Mylar for the project, the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney as substantially set forth in Section 13 of the draft declaration submitted by the applicant. 4. A pre-construction meeting shall be held between the developer, his engineer and contractor, and Town staff prior to commencing construction; additional meetings shall be held as requested by Town staff during construction. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit(s), vegetation obscuring sight distances shall be removed and a level approach to Harbor Road included at both driveway locations. 6. Relevant sections of the Development Specifications for the Town of Shelburne shall be observed during construction. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

6. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, S&C FOLLEY/S&K MOORE, 87 and 85 HARVEST LANE (BLA03-03) Sean Folley appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Sean Folley explained the maps on record showing lot lines are in conflict as well as the boundary line lived by for the past 20 years. An appropriate (compliant) boundary line satisfactory to all the neighbors and the town has been located.

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce stated the change in frontage on the Moore property is a reduction from 90’ to 80’. When the subdivision was approved, several lots had smaller frontage. The boundary line adjustment will not make the lots less complying with the regulations. Other lots have as little as 47’ of frontage. Mr. Pierce noted Sharon Litwhiler, neighbor to the north of Moore, expressed concern about all the boundary lines for the lots in the development being in error. The Planning Commission is not in the position to know if other boundary lines need adjustment, however, the proposed boundary line adjustment will likely not create a domino effect with the other lots.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION Boundary Line Adjustment, Folley/Moore, 87 & 85 Harvest Lane (BLA03-03) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to approve the boundary line adjustment for the reconfiguration of the boundary between properties of Sean and Carole Folley (87 Harvest Lane) and Stephen and Karen Moore (85 Harvest Lane). VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

7. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, TOWN OF SHELBURNE/LAKE CHAMPLAIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. (DUNCAN WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTURE), NOONAN HOUSE, 5404 SHELBURNE ROAD (SP00-4R3) Withdrawn.

8. PRD PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, SHELBURNE CLIFFS PARTNERSHIP/BENCHMARK SHELBURNE SENIOR HOUSING LLC, 333 MORGAN DRIVE (SUB03-05) Dave Marshall and Mark Neagley appeared on behalf of the application.

APPLICANT COMMENTS Dave Marshall reviewed the changes to the plan in response to concerns about the driveway location and fire access to the building. The building will have a full sprinkler system installed. A 4” water transport line for fire protection will be installed. As an option, there is 35,000 gallon water storage under the original building which could be used as a cistern. There will be no impact on the Thomas septic system by the access road. Mr. Marshall noted the request from Ms. Grayson (neighbor) to move the southern most garage to the west side of the roadway and add screening. There is substantial existing vegetation. Mark Neagley showed draft sketches of the garages (shed like in appearance).

STAFF REPORT Dean Pierce reviewed the suggested conditions of approval submitted by the applicant. The items listed are outstanding issues the applicant intends to address at the final approval hearing.

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

DELIBERATION/DECISION Preliminary Plan Review, Shelburne Cliffs, 333 Morgan Drive (SUB03-05) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant preliminary plan approval to Shelburne Cliffs Partnership/Benchmark Shelburne Senior Housing for the conversion of an existing senior housing complex into 11 condominium units at 333 Morgan Drive per the plans submitted and received by the Shelburne Planning Office, dated 8/25/03, with the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to address the Town’s consulting engineer’s outstanding issues including a) clarifying the northeasterly property line dimension; b) reducing the design flows for the project to less than 2625 gallons per day; c) relocating the existing wastewater septic tanks from the expanded driveway in conformance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Rules; d) ensuring the erosion plan addresses the stabilization of the wastewater disposal field slope; e) addressing the emergency access to the north side of the north building (#7). 2. The drainage culvert at the existing entrance shall be reviewed with the Highway Department to determine if any improvements are necessary. 3. The applicant shall install a sprinkler system in both buildings consistent with Vermont State and NFPA standards. 4. The plans shall be modified to include the installation of a dry pipe system suitable to deliver pumped flows from Harbor Road to a point outside the southern most building or a suitable alternate system for providing adequate water for fighting a fire at the existing structures. 5. The plans for a blow-off shall be submitted to the Water Department for approval. 6. A 4’ waiver is granted from the 50’ buffer setback for the proposed garage to the north. 7. The plans shall be revised to show reasonable emergency vehicle access on the north side of the building. 8. The plans shall be revised to relocate the south garage to the westerly side of the access from the northerly proposed four-bay garage. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

9. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE None.

10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Chris Neme, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Minutes transcribed from videotape and respectfully submitted by M.Riordan, Recording Secretary.