Planning Commission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JANUARY 13, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt. STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Ken Albert, Gail Albert, Victor Meilleur, Randy Meilleur, Mike Burke, Roger Guillemette, Gerry Guillemette, Joanne Guillemette, Marguerite Guillemette Meunier, Bernard Guillemette, Thea Platt, Norman and Jenifer Burnett, Oda Hubbard, Mike Anderson, Deane Wang, Carolyn “Becky” Wang, Chris Davis, Halina Dooley, Cheryl Robbins-Dooley, Dave Marshall. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (12/9/04) 2. Presentation by Representatives of the Shelburne School Board 3. Final Plan Review, Randall, Arlene, Jamie Fisher, 38 Webster Lane (SUB03-11) 4. Site Plan Review Amendment, Alan Clayton/Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate), 40 Shelburne Shopping Park (SP96-8R1) 5. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Meach Cove Real Estate Trust/Kenneth Albert, west side Route 7 and south side Bostwick Road (SUB04-09) 6. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Ernest Auclair Family Trust/Michael Anderson, 61 Pond Road (SUB04-10) 7. Other Business, Correspondence 8. Adjournment 1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2004 MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the 12/9/04 minutes with the following corrections: Globally correct the spelling of “Linda Bribnau”; Page 1, Bourgea application, Applicant Comments, 2nd line – change “subdivision” to “re-subdivision”. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 2. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHELBURNE SCHOOL BOARD Postponed to a future date. 3. FINAL PLAN REVIEW, RANDALL, ARLENE & JAMIE FISHER, 38 WEBSTER LANE (SUB03-11) Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Marshall reviewed the site plan, noting the storm water and sediment and erosion control plans have been submitted. Water service to Lot #3A is shown. The entryway to the parcel has been consolidated to one. A recreation path easement is shown (a bump out has been provided). A new Stop sign is shown. Any remaining outstanding engineering issues will be addressed and the required information submitted to the Town Engineer. There will be signs placed with street addresses in response to the Fire Chief’s concern. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Rick Peterson asked about wells serving the homes. Dave Marshall explained Lot #3A will be served by town water, but the existing houses are on wells. Mr. Marshall assured there will be one additional water line for one of the three lots. Reg Gignoux referred to the zoning regulations related to lot size and water service (50,000 s.f. lot for public water/sewer; 100,000 s.f. lot for on-site water). Dave Marshall replied to satisfy the regulations, the spare water line will serve Lot 3B (Jamie Fisher property). Rick Peterson asked about the path easement crossing Webster Lane in a zigzag manner. Dave Marshall explained the layout provides flexibility to the town to avoid queuing conflicts with vehicles. If the southern line goes along the right-of-way, then the rec path could parallel this. Mr. Marshall stated the path layout could be straightened if needed. Fred Schmidt asked about the bike trail to be located on the southern boundary of the property. Mr. Marshall referred to the study that identified a corridor for a future rec path, adding that the Fisher family is in support of the path and willing to provide an easement on their property. Rick Peterson questioned if the Stop sign would be enforceable without an ordinance. There was discussion of having the Selectboard include the Stop sign in the ordinance or allowing the Selectboard to decide if and when a Stop sign is needed on Webster Lane. PUBLIC COMMENTS Marge Sharp asked who has the right of way, a bicyclist on the pathway or a car coming down the driveway. The answer was not known. DELIBERATION/DECISION Final Plan, Subdivision, 38 Webster Lane, Fisher (SUB03-11) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to grant final plan approval to Randall and Arlene Fisher for an amendment to a previously approved subdivision as shown on the plans presented and with the following conditions and submittals required for final plat review: 1. Prior to the recording of a mylar, plans shall be revised to address any unresolved concerns identified by the Town’s consulting engineer, Jonathan Ashley, P.E., in the letter dated 1/4/05. 2. Prior to filing a mylar, the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents, revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney. 3. All work related to public utilities shall be complete consistent with the Town’ Public Works specifications. 4. To comply with zoning regulations for minimum lot size, Lot #3 shall be served by the second available water line available in the subdivision. 5. Unless otherwise indicated by Amy Bell, VTrans Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Coordinator, or John Kaplan, VTrans, the 10’ wide path easement as it crosses Webster Lane shall be straightened. 6. 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 (7-0); motion carried. 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW AMENDMENT, ALAN CLAYTON/CHERYL ROBBINS-DOOLEY (dba Blackflower Chocolate), 40 SHELBURNE SHOPPING PARK (SP96-8R1) Cheryl Robbins-Dooley appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Robbins-Dooley explained she leases space in a building owned by Alan Clayton in the Shelburne Shopping Park for the creation and retail sale of hand-made artesian designed chocolates. The Zoning Board determined three parking spaces will be needed based on the retail square footage and the manufacturing area. Ms. Robbins-Dooley said only she will be making the chocolates by hand using molds so there is not a manufacturing operation, and no more than two to three people coming to the shop at once are anticipated for the retail sales portion of the business. Rick Peterson mentioned the change in use (i.e. retail and manufacturing) triggered site plan review which includes review of the parking for the site. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce asked if the amount of parking available to the applicant is outlined in the lease for the building. Ms. Robbins-Dooley stated parking spaces (number, location) is not specified in the lease with Mr. Clayton. Mr. Pierce pointed out the Planning Commission can decide the number of parking spaces reasonable for the site and the use. There was discussion of the parking available for the existing uses in the park. There was also mention of the storage of materials from the hardware store on the property. The Planning Commission felt the matter should be resolved by the parties on the site and is not part of Ms. Robbins-Dooley site plan review. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan Review Amendment, Change of Use, 40 Shelburne Shopping Park, Clayton/Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant approval to Alan Clayton/Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate) for a site plan amendment at 40 Shelburne Shopping Park consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant(s) shall document the total number of parking spaces available to the user of the unit. 2. The applicant, Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate) shall secure a minimum of three parking spaces associated with the approved use. 3. 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 (7-0); motion carried. 5. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, MEACH COVE REAL ESTATE TRUST/KENNETH ALBERT, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 7 & SOUTH SIDE OF BOSTWICK ROAD (SUB04-09) Ken Albert appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Albert reviewed the vineyard and winery operation. Five acres of cold hardy grapes will be planted yielding 20 tons of grape juice for wine. The building will have two wings: 40’x 70’ processing building and 30’x 40’ building for tasting, sales, and some storage. The applicant noted the architect is still working on the design and orientation on the site of the building. The driveway configuration will respond to the orientation of the building. The site is opposite the northern entry to Trudy’s farmstand. Sight distance will be confirmed though it appears at 1,000’ a car disappears from view. Mr. Albert emphasized the desire to optimize safety. Regarding paths, there will be a path on the perimeter of the plantings (mowed walkway in the meadow; no gravel or construction). Paths in the new growth woods to the west are being investigated (some brush will be removed). Mr. Albert indicated willingness to discuss connecting the paths with other paths in town. Mr. Albert paraphrased his letter arguing the winery is an agricultural/farming operation. The operation includes growing grapes, harvesting, making wine. Additional grapes will be imported from a vineyard in Benson, Vermont. Current production is 900 cases of wine. The goal is 5,000 cases of wine. Shelburne Vineyards was established in 1998 with three acres of grapes. A long term lease with Meach Trust for the acreage has been executed. Over 50% of the wine produced is from the Shelburne vineyards (two sites). Weather did have an impact on production this past year. Organic certification has been received. In the opinion of the Environmental Board (Act 250), Shelburne vineyard meets the definition of farming so an Act 250 permit is not necessary. The vineyard also meets the definition of state law for a farming operation. A letter has been sent to the Shelburne Zoning Coordinator for an interpretation of Shelburne’s bylaws with regard to definition of the operation. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce noted the Federal Agriculture Department’s opinion is the operation would not qualify for a 4495 exemption (agriculture). There was agreement determination of use from the Shelburne Zoning Coordinator is needed before the application can proceed. Dean Pierce also suggested a traffic engineer review sight distances. Fred Schmidt felt the application is in total character with what the town is trying to do with the town plan: preserves the gateway to the village, produces and promotes a local product, meshes uses (manufacturing and retail sales), integrates trails and paths, has organic certification on the product, fits with the Meach Cove Trust plan to foster local agricultural activity. The Planning Commission concurred the concept is what the Commission is interested in seeing in the town. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Sketch Plan, Subdivision, Route 7/Bostwick Road, Meach Cove/Ken Albert (SUB04-09) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to classify the sketch plan submitted by Kenneth Albert/Meach Cove Trust as a minor subdivision. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the sketch plan submitted by Kenneth Albert/Meach Cove Trust subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to filing an application for final plan approval, the applicant shall seek an opinion from the Zoning Coordinator regarding the nature of the proposed uses. 2. In the event the Zoning Coordinator or Zoning Board determines the project involves uses other than agriculture or one/two family residences, any final plan application shall be accompanied by an application for site plan approval and all required plans and supporting materials. 3. Any final plan application shall include materials addressing concerns identified by Rick Lewis of the Water Department and Craig Wooster of the Shelburne Fire Department. 4. Any final plan application shall include a detailed site plan prepared by a professional engineer or licensed design professional including details on the design of the road and parking. 5. Any final plan application shall include evidence that the access has been/will be approved by VTrans which has jurisdiction over US Route 7. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. 6. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, ERNEST AUCLAIR FAMILY TRUST/MICHAEL ANDERSON, 61 POND ROAD (SUB04-10) Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre recused themselves. Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of Chairman. Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mike Burke reviewed the site plan showing the east-west crossover road (60’ right-of-way) which accesses lots #4, #5, #6. The right-of-way avoids the wetlands as known presently. Mr. Burke reviewed the building envelopes on lots #1, #2, #3, and the Shelburne/St. George town line. There are seven acres in the Town of St. George (the acreage is adjacent to Route 116). The St. George Development Review Board approved the seven acres as a lot. Mr. Burke stated a 41 acre lot will be dedicated to conservation easement with third party ownership (discussions are on-going with Vermont Land Trust). There is an agricultural easement on a significant portion of lot #3, and setbacks (no cut zones) to protect the stream and wetlands on the property. There is a forest management area on lots #3 and #6. Access will be from Route 116. Sight distance appears to be adequate. VTrans approval is needed for a curb cut. It appears the project will have enough impervious surface to need a state storm water permit. The east-west road has a wetlands crossing and there is a wetlands complex on either side of the access from Route 116 so a CUD (Conditional Use Determination) will be needed. A community waste water system in the vicinity of lot #6 and lot #4 is proposed. Further investigation is needed. Regarding the town line determination, Mr. Burke felt his firm can get close to determining the property line, but can not definitively do so. The final determination of the line may have to be made by the Legislature if necessary. Hilda White asked about the fire pond. Mr. Burke stated the pond will be located in an area with a high probability of intercepting ground water. The pond will likely be by the wetlands. A permit will be necessary for the ponds. Other options include a manmade structure filled with water, but this may not be reliable. Reg Gignoux asked if the width of the right-of-way has been approved by the Town of St. George. Mike Burke replied the matter need to be clarified with St. George. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce observed if the land in St. George becomes a lot, it is likely the owners would want to access the property via the same curb cut as the proposed development. Mr. Pierce asked about addressing the concern regarding potential conflicts between residents and the Guillemette property (right to farm). Development must be compatible with surrounding properties, stated Mr. Pierce. Mike Burke confirmed right to farm language could be part of the deed language so the property owners are well informed there is a working farm nearby (reasonable operating conditions). Hilda White suggested a provision be added saying if a homeowner files a lawsuit against the farmer and loses the case, then the loser pays the legal bills for both parties. Dean Pierce will further investigate the right to farm issue with the Town Attorney. Fred Schmidt commented what is compatible with a neighborhood changes over time. Adding six or seven houses to the area will change the area to suburban, not a rural farm. Mr. Schmidt also mentioned the concern of the number of school children generated by the new development. Mike Burke stated the “guesstimate” is one student per household. The houses will be high end, four bedroom homes, but research has shown there are not many children. Also, there is a declining school population in Chittenden County, stated Mr. Burke. Fred Schmidt noted there are a significant number of students in private school in Shelburne, and if the economy declines, these students could end up in the public school system which would have an impact. There was further discussion of the number of school children generated by developments, households without children, and Shelburne being a retirement destination. PUBLIC COMMENTS Oda Hubbard asked and was shown the locations of the house lots on the site plan. Ms. Hubbard pointed out the Maeck farm development has houses clustered on an “island” with agricultural land surrounding them, but there are no farm buildings or operations going on by the houses. Bernie Guillemette expressed concern a good lawyer could shred even the strongest right to farm language. Joanne Guillemette stated the concern is more than the smell, noise, activity of the farm, but also the safety of children. Children from the new houses will likely go exploring and could get hurt on the farm. There is a one million gallon manure pit by the barn which looks like a big mud pit (very inviting to children who are not educated to the hazards on a farm). The manure pit is surrounded by five strands of barbed wire only. Also, some of the farm equipment can be started without a key or pulled out of gear and roll. Norman Burnett, Rocky Ridge Golf Course, expressed concern about stray golf balls from Hole #15 possibly reaching the house on lot #1. Mr. Burnett said he does not have $70,000 to install a huge fence like the one at the golf range in Williston. It was noted a house built on the St. George property could also be subject to stray golf balls. Halina Dooley spoke in support of the Guillemettes, local farmers, and open space. Ms. Dooley stated the purchasers of the proposed houses will likely have the money and power to potentially squeeze out the farm. Gerry Guillemette stated the development presents an undue hardship on the farmer. The Guillemette family made an investment in the barn and purchased other land to make the farm work. It is devastating to see the construction, noting the effort by the Gentrys to save the land around the pond and that the only difference in this case is there is a working farm. Mr. Guillemette also agreed with the statements about children exploring and potential for getting hurt on the farm. The Planning Commission was urged to give the proposal serious thought because of the impact on the Guillemette family. If the Planning Commission wants to see housing developments, cautioned Gerry Guillemette, there could be more built on the land across the street. Mr. Guillemette asked about plans for the land to the south. Reg Gignoux explained if the preliminary plan is approved, there are a number of conditions that will address access to land to the south. The three-step review process was explained. Gerry Guillemette expressed concern about clearly identifying the property and the plans for all the land. Thea Platt expressed concern about any potential lawsuits brought against the Guillemette family, adding the development is not a good solution. Margaret Guillemette Meunier echoed the previous comments, adding the disruption never stops, first the lawsuit, then the court, then Superior Court, then Supreme Court, and on and on. Roger Guillemette pointed out it appears two houses are proposed to be built on open land, not back in the woods. Mr. Guillemette felt the matter will boil down to a lawsuit. Mr. Guillemette also mentioned the issue of water for fire protection (fire pond is needed). Becky Wang, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, said she has not yet done a full review of the proposal, but felt having the woods to the west under conservation is good. A conservation easement to preserve the wildlife corridor is necessary. Working with the Land Trust regarding the farm land is a good approach, but it is not certain having the farm equipment cross the driveway to access the farmland will work. The farm easement should be with the Land Trust. Ms. Wang suggested a wildlife inventory be done, especially in the middle portion of the parcel. Ken Albert pointed out the development is proposed in the one place where there is a functioning farm in Shelburne, and it may be possible the regulations address impact on adjacent operations. Bernie Guillemette stated 69 farms in Vermont ceased operation in 2004. There are only 1,295 operating farms remaining in the entire state. Mr. Guillemette stated above and beyond the land owned by his family farm, additional land is leased for crops. According to the Farm Service Agency crop report, the Guillemette farm leases 415 acres located on Dorset Street, Route 116, and Brownell Road. If the farming operation can not continue, then there is no need for this additional land and it will likely be converted by the owners to housing. The Planning Commission needs to consider this, urged Mr. Guillemette. It was mentioned there are other area farmers in the same position (i.e. considering subdividing their land for development). There was discussion of the level of access to the property relative to the current proposal. It was clarified the Planning Commission has the right to understand the level of access (e.g. master plan for the entire parcel). Dean Pierce will check with the Town Attorney on the matter of two parcels with the same owner being connected by a right-of-way and whether the Planning Commission can request a master plan for all the land (both parcels). Mr. Pierce suggested a condition of approval that the applicant’s attorney provide an opinion on the matter, and the Town Attorney will react to the opinion. Tucker Holland thanked everyone for their thoughtful comments, opining the purpose of the Planning Commission is to create a peaceful coexistence of neighbors. Mr. Holland acknowledged the applicant putting thoughtfulness in the siting of the houses, but there needs to be no uncertainty that those moving in know what is going on in the neighborhood and that the operation has been going on for generations and will continue. It would be nice to find a compromise to have a peaceful coexistence with the neighbors, stated Mr. Holland. Hilda White asked about VAST trail on the site plan being permanent. Reg Gignoux stated the trail is voluntary. Dean Pierce explained the intent was if there is a trail, show it on the site plan as well as an alternate location if necessary. There were no further comments. DELIBERATION/DECISION Sketch Plan, Subdivision, 61 Pond Road, Auclair/Anderson (SUB04-10) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the sketch plan submitted by Michael Anderson/Ernest Auclair Trust subject to the following conditions: 1. The location of the property relative to the boundaries of all adjoining properties shall be established by a licensed surveyor prior to the filing of any preliminary plan application; all plans submitted with applications filed with the Town of Shelburne shall depict the boundary of the property as it exists within the Town of Shelburne. 2. Documentation regarding the Town of St. George’s approval of or alternatively lack of jurisdiction over the easterly access drive shall be provided as part of any preliminary plan application. 3. The applicant shall provide evidence that any access intersecting Vermont Route 116 has been or likely will be approved by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) as part of any preliminary plan application. 4. Information regarding traffic safety including information addressing the adequacy of stopping sight distances shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application. 5. Information regarding whether or not the State of Vermont is likely to issue a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) for an east-west oriented access road shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application; if the information indicates that the State has or likely would approve a CUD, the plans shall depict the location of a potential east-west oriented access road. 6. Information documenting the applicant’s efforts to avoid wetlands and screen proposed house sites from view from the road and farm shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application. 7. Any preliminary plan application shall contain information demonstrating how the propose development would be compatible with surrounding properties; this information which may include draft legal documents incorporating “Right to Farm” language shall address topics such as noise, odors, lighting, trespass, behavior of domestic animals, and impact of pests. 8. A legal memorandum describing the nature of the “prescribed right” of way the Auclairs enjoy across the Lewis Trust land and Peet lands shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application. 9. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict a proposed bicycle and pedestrian easement along the northern boundary of the property. 10. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict the location of the existing VAST trail on the property as well as the location of at least one proposed re-routing of the VAST trail. 11. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict the location including access of a fire pond or cistern with a minimum of 50,000 gallons. 12. The application shall demonstrate the ongoing involvement in the project of one or more qualified conservation organizations to which conservation and agricultural easements would be transferred. 13. The application shall include all other required information identified in the Preliminary Plan Checklist contained within the Town of Shelburne Subdivision Procedures and Application. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to classify the sketch plan submitted by Michael Anderson/Ernest Auclair Trust as a major subdivision. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson resumed the duties of Chairman. 7. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE School Board Presentation Postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting. Anticipated Applications -Subdivision with cluster for six new residents and existing house -Dissolving of PUD for Vermont Teddy Bear. Zoning Changes The Planning Commission received a letter for possible zoning changes regarding exceptions to setbacks. Materials were received for the next Town Plan update work session on 1/20/05. A handout was provided to the Planning Commission regarding the seminar on changes to state zoning requirements. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JANUARY 27, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt. (Reg Gignoux was absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Oda Hubbard, Joseph Maille, Michael and Karen Villante, Anne Ritter, Trafton Crandall, J. Wagner, Maureen O’Brien, Mark Jaffe, Chris Kapsulis, Gregg Beldock, Adam Brown, Bill Powers, Margaret Mallette, Sylvia Maille, Barb Burroughs, Joel Goldberg, Terry McKnight, Ted Winfield, Bob Merrett, Tom Anderson, Robyn Lane, Achigr Moy, Rose Garritano, Peter Garritano. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (1/13/05) 2. Design Review Amendment, Fieldhouse, LLC, 19 Harbor Road/Harrington Circle (DR04-014R1) 3. PRD Sketch Plan Review, John Wagner/Wag, LLC, 4592 Dorset St. (SUB05-01) 4. Other Business, Correspondence 5. Adjournment 1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and welcomed Achigr Moy and Robyn Lane with Community Organization Development, and Ann Ritter, UVM student, who were observing the meeting. APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2005 MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the 1/13/05 minutes with the following correction: Page 3, Applicant Comments, 2nd line – correct the spelling of “artisan”. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 2. DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT, FILEDHOUSE, LLC, 19 HARBOR ROAD/HARRINGTON CIRCLE (DR04-014R1) Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Beldock explained the minor changes to the housing units (windows nine-over-one, porches shortened to 20’, footprint of the building shortened). The changes will help ease the “tightness” of the site. The overall height of the buildings has not changed. There will be changes to the exterior lights on the building. The skirt board will be 10” wide. Window muntins will be outside the glass of the windows. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/27/05. Dean Pierce explained the changes to the lighting (front door light eliminated, light on porch ceiling mounted, light above the garage door eliminated). There are to be no posts in front of any doors or windows. Fred Schmidt asked why the changes were being made to the buildings. Mr. Beldock stated architects for the buyer (Community Land Trust) thought the site as originally designed was too tight. PUBLIC COMMENTS Oda Hubbard asked if the attics can be used since the footprint is being made smaller. Mr. Beldock stated the owners can convert the attic space into a bedroom if desired. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review Amendment, Minor Building Changes, 19 Harbor Road/Harrington Circle, Fieldhouse, LLC (RD04-014R1) MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to grant approval to amend the previously approved design review application in connection with a 14-unit PRD proposed for 19 Harbor Road consistent with the plans specified and subject to the following conditions: 1. Porch skirt boards shall be 5/4”x 10” material. 2. Exterior mounted lights next to front entry doors shall be eliminated and replaced with low profile ceiling mounted lights on the porch roof above the door, and exterior rear door lighting shall remain as presented. 3. All lights shown above garage doors shall be removed. 4. All lighting shall comply with Town lighting standards. 5. Porch posts shall not be placed in front of any windows or doors. 6. Large double-hung windows shall be of “nine-over-one” design throughout the project while small windows shall be “six-over-one” design. 7. Window muntins shall be applied to the exterior of windows by the window manufacturer, and if this is not possible, the applicant shall return to the Historic Preservation and Review Commission to present an alternative option. 8. Previous conditions pertaining to materials, details, and colors shall remain in effect. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 3. PRD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, JOHN WAGNER/WAG, LLC, 4592 DORSET STREET (SUB05-01) Trafton Crandall, engineer with Llewellyn-Howley, appeared on behalf of the application. Chairman Peterson explained the three stage review process with subdivision applications. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Crandall explained the proposal to subdivide 39.7 acres into six lots. The property is in the Rural 1 district which allows one unit per five acres. A total of seven units would be allowed on the acreage. There is an existing house on Dorset Street (brick farmhouse with barns in the rear). The house, a 200 year old structure, is on the historic resources map as a state historic resource. The proposal includes maintaining the house on the large lot. The six subdivided lots are proposed as a PRD. The lots will be clustered to maintain as much open space as possible. The property is a hayfield. There is a ridge running north-south. There is a tree row along the boundary line running south-north. The area to the west is wooded. There are potential wetlands on the property (this is shown on the site plan, but not yet officially delineated). The proposed development is located away from the wetlands area. Lot sizes will range in size from .77 acre to .94 acre. Setbacks for a PRD are met with the new construction, but the existing farmhouse does not meet the 75’ setback for a PRD. A variance may be needed. As an option, the large parcel could be treated as a separate lot to the six subdivided lots. Mr. Crandall reviewed and discussed visual resources (there is a ridge and the lots are out of the foreground and located to hide view of the houses as much as possible), agricultural soils (the land with the farmhouse will likely remain in agricultural use), and ownership of the lot created by the driveway (this area can be protected as open space). Regarding traffic, the six single family units will have minimal impact on traffic. The driveway can be moved to the north side of the brick farmhouse to eliminate conflicts with the former Sutton Farm. There is a VAST trail on the north side of the property running east to south. Claude LaPierre asked how far from Dorset Street the houses will be located. Mr. Crandall stated the first lot is approximately 300’ from the road. The front end of the houses may be visible. Mr. Crandall showed the location of existing residences to the north of the property. Mr. LaPierre asked why the development is not to the north of the Sutton house. Mr. Crandall explained better screening of the houses is possible if they are located on the south side of the property. Rick Peterson asked about the use of the Maille property to the south. Sylvia Maille stated the land is in agricultural use (animals graze the land and crops can be planted). Fred Schmidt confirmed there is a working farm to the south of the proposed development. It was noted the Maille farm supports approximately 150 head of cattle (milk cows, yearlings, heifers, steers), crops and pasture land. Claude LaPierre pointed out if the houses were built on the north side of the property, the southern portion could be used for rotational grazing. Rick Peterson suggested the development be located in the northwest corner. Mr. Crandall pointed out the houses will be more visible in this location. It was noted the Planning Commission will look at the location of the development and entry to Dorset Street during a site visit. Rick Peterson asked about common land. Trafton Crandall reviewed various ways to protect open land (common land, easements, development rights, agricultural use). Chairman Peterson asked if a large free standing lot will remain. Mr. Crandall confirmed this. Fred Schmidt asked about the land within the circular access road. Mr. Crandall stated this will be common land for the six lots maintained by a homeowners association. There was discussion of the community septic system (mound system). There will be a designated area for the septic system and easements granted to each lot. Perk tests have to be done. There was mention of the well water supply. Mr. Crandall stated each lot will have its own well. The brick farmhouse will have a new drilled well due to the location of the proposed community septic system. Tucker Holland asked if there is a manure pit on the neighboring Maille farm. Mr. Maille stated manure is stockpiled and spread in the summer. There is not a manure pit. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/27/05. Dean Pierce mentioned the Fire Chief would like to see a fire pond or cistern. The Police Chief would like a Stop sign installed on Dorset Street. Public Works feels the size of the culverts under Dorset Street need to be increased. The Natural Resources Committee will submit comments following a site visit. The Sutton farmstead is on the National Register of Historic Places, noted Mr. Pierce. A lot of at least five acres is needed for the farmstead. It may be necessary to do a subdivision and a PRD because the farmhouse is located within the proposed PRD buffer. Dean Pierce asked about possible contamination of the farm pond. Mr. Crandall stated there is about 500’ isolation from the proposed community septic system which will be constructed to state standards so there should not be a risk to the pond. If a filtrate treatment system is installed, this will provide further treatment to effluent and decrease contaminants in the waste water. The water wells will be uphill from the septic system. Fred Schmidt commented that the proposal does not seem to be compatible with the agricultural operation in the area, and it carves up an historic farm site, using up the backyard area. The farmstead is one of the most prominent farm sites on the street, and the house is 200 years old. There is an operating farm, one of the few left, trying to operate on both sides of Dorset Street. Mr. Crandall offered if the development is moved to the north side of the property, there will be more of a connection to the property in the back and contiguous connection to the adjacent farm. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Jaffe, Governors Lane, pointed out seven houses on a 40 acre site is better than the high density trailer park that was previously proposed, but the surrounding properties are large parcels (15 acres) and the proposed building lots are much smaller (less than an acre) and out of character with the area. The proposed development opens a Pandora’s Box in a part of Shelburne that has been identified as a rural district with large lots. Rick Peterson explained five acre zoning is required in the district so with a PRD only seven lots would be allowed on the applicant’s property. A zoning change would be needed in order to allow higher density, and the public would have to approve such a change. Trafton Crandall added it will be deeded that no more lots will be allowed on the remainder of the land so the land will stay open. Bill Powers asked who willd own the open land. Rick Peterson stated the land would be commonly owned or one owner. Mr. Crandall stated if the lot has to be designated for the existing use, then another instrument would be needed for the open land. Mr. Powers expressed concern supplying six houses with water from six wells will be pulling water from each other’s well. Also, the septic system located by Dorset Street will end up draining eventually into Shelburne Pond. Rick Peterson assured the septic system and wells must be properly engineered. Terry McKnight, Governors Lane, suggested the land in the center of the access road circle be common land for the development and the remainder of the land go with the farm (rather than just giving five acres to the farmhouse and leaving the rest as common land). This will better protect the land from development in the future if the zoning in the district should change. Mr. Crandall stated it may be required with a PRD to put language in the deed stating no further development. Mr. McKnight suggested the lots be linear along the north edge of the property, rather than in a cul-de-sac design. A linear layout will yield more open space to the south adjacent to the farm. Margaret Mallette stated two-story houses can be seen regardless of the ridge. Also, the development is high density for the area since there are not six houses on five acre lots on the street. Sylvia Maille, Dorset Street, stated the proposed driveway is across from the farm barn and trailer (lots of farm equipment and farm traffic). Ms. Maille suggested the driveway would be better located on the north side of the house. Regarding wells, Ms. Maille testified they have low water pressure. Also, the farm land is fertilized and wells must be 100’ from the property line. Ms. Maille asked who will maintain the brush on the applicant’s property which is overgrown and impacts sight distance. Clustering the houses is preferred because it is easier to farm (easier to farm five acres than one acre), noted Ms. Maille. There is the safety concern of having families and children coming onto the farm and getting hurt somehow. People buying the houses need to know there is an operating farm next door and there will be noise and odor, stressed Ms. Maille. The issue of using the (common/open) land for farming and identifying who the landowner is also needs consideration. Rose Garritano, owner of the horse farm adjacent to the property, expressed concern about the potential impact on the wells when manure is spread. Also, there is noise and odor from the horse farm. Maureen O’Brien, Barstow Road, referred to the originally proposal for a trailer park and questioned if the proposed mound system will support the number of bedrooms proposed. Ms. O’Brien observed the soil testing appears to have shifted to the east side of the ridge from the west side. Trafton Crandall stated the houses will have a minimum of three bedrooms. There are three bedrooms in the brick farmhouse as well. Additional testing has not been done since the trailer park application. Test pits identified the west side of the slope to have the best depth to the seasonal high water table. The size and type of the mound system will be based on the water table and the perk rate. Perk tests have not yet been done so the footprint shows a “guessed” rate based on the soil type. In addition, the secondary filtrate system can be considered. It is known there are suitable soils for seven houses. Margaret Mallette shared her experience in siting a septic system on their property. Sylvia Maille recalled other people wanted to buy property and build one or two houses, but could not due to septic limitations. Rick Peterson assured more detail on the septic system will be required at the next stage of review. Only a total of seven houses are allowed on the amount of available acreage per the zoning. Bill Powers asked if there is any effect on federal funding by the development since the farmhouse is on the federal register. Terry McKnight noted the registry is concerned with the structure, not the land. Pete Garritano expressed concern that the people who buy the houses in the proposed development will not want agricultural activities on their doorstep. The development impacts the rural view and character of the area. Mr. Garritano asked when the plans were drafted. Mr. Crandall stated the plans were done in the last couple of months, and effort has been made to protect the viewshed along the front of the property and disguise the houses as much as possible. Development is being proposed, conceded Mr. Crandall, but effort is being made to minimize impact. Karen Villante, resident on Dorset Street south of the proposed development (back of the ridge) stated the Garritano house is visible from her house (so the proposed development will be visible). Ms Villante asked if there are other high density, cluster developments within a certain amount of acreage in the Rural 1 district or if Mr. Wagner’s application is a precedent. Regarding water pressure, Ms. Villante stated their well which is 222’ deep yields two gallons per minute. There is concern six more wells on the back side of the ridge will impact water volume and pressure. (Hilda White noted the Beaver Creek development is a cluster development as is the Meack farm. The Planning Commission has been trying to cluster buildings in farm areas and maintain more open space.) John Wagner, applicant, assured he is sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns. There have been discussions of locating the development to the north. Mr. Wagner described his plan to renovate the existing farmhouse to be a proud landmark in Shelburne and to work with everyone to develop the best plan possible. DELIBERATION/DECISION PRD Sketch Plan, Seven Residential Lots, Wagner, 4592 Dorset Street (SUB05-01) MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to conduct a site visit on 2/5/05, 9 a.m. (meet at the Sutton farm house). VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to continue the review of the PRD application for seven lots at 4592 Dorset St. by John Wagner (SUB05-01) until 2/10/05. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 4. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Request to Waive Impact Fees The Planning Commission discussed the request to waive impact fees by Bullrock Corporation/Fieldhouse LLC for their affordable housing development on Harbor Road. More information on past practice was requested. The Commission also wanted assurance that the savings would be passed on to the buyers of the units. Dean Pierce will provide the Commission with the requested information. Selectboard Budget for Update of Village Plan Dean Pierce reported there is $8,000 in certified local government funds that can be used to update the village plan. A public hearing to reaffirm the village plan is needed. Chapter 117 Planning Law Changes The Planning Commission may meet with the Zoning Board on February 7th to review and discuss planning/zoning law changes (Ch. 117). 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.