MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland. (Fred Schmidt was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Marge Sharp, Robert Miller, Gregg Beldock, Robert Donahue,  Adam Portz, John Wakefield, Peter Gibbs, Anne Ritter, Lee Zachary, Susan Zachary, Jim Carroll, Jim Collins, Mike Dussault, Alica Burris, Douglas Riley, Scott Jaunch, David Pierson, Anzi Jacobs, Fritz Horton, Kevin Worden, Grant Bush, Jodi Breckenridge Hilker, Peter Richardson, John Wakefield.

AGENDA:     

1.      Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (2/24/05)

2.      School Board Presentation by Grant Bush and Jodi Breckenridge Hilker re: Plan for Future School Facilities

3.      Request for Support/Waiver of Impact Fees, Bullrock Corp., Harrington Circle Residential Units

4.      PRD Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Ram N. Sinha, 2 & 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB05-02)

5.      Final Plan Review Continuance, Roger & Mignonne Bourgea, 59 Webster Road (SUB90-7R1)

6.      Request from Fritz Horton/Anzi Jacobs

7.      Request from Peter Richardson

8.      PUD Site Plan Amendment, Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc./URSA (VT) QRS 1230, Inc./The Miller Realty Group, Inc., South Park Road (SUB92-3R4)

9.      Site Plan Amendment, Shelburne Realty Co., LTD./Redstone Commercial Group, 4740 Shelburne Road (SP91-2R1)

10.  Other Business, Correspondence

11.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.

 

 

School Board members, Grant Bush and Jodi Breckenridge Hilker, discussed plans for renovation and expansion of the school based on forecasted enrollment figures. The school is currently facing a significant space shortage. Classroom, storage, cafeteria, and special education space is needed. A facilities analysis of the school was done to determine necessary structural, lighting, heating improvements. Analysis of educational space that is needed to accommodate 856 students (current student population) was also done.  Both documents are available for review. The timeline is to have the initial plans before the Planning Commission in June/July and go to a bond vote on the renovation/expansion proposal in November. There was discussion of population projections and the difficulty in determining an accurate student population to guide the space expansion at the school.  There was brief discussion of the school owned property on Route 7. The School Board is exploring how to use the property to generate revenue for the school. There are wetlands on the property and conditions on the use of the land.  There was mention of potential impact of approved housing developments of the school. Rick Peterson explained the projects are phased build-out, but the Planning Commission has discretion to further slow the pace. There was agreement to having continued communication between the School Board and the Planning Commission.

 

Chairman Peterson cited the September, 2003 resolution which allows the Selectboard to waive a portion of impact fees for projects with affordable housing. Gregg Beldock representing Bullrock Corp. explained the request for waiver of education and recreation impact fees ($123,000 in fees) for the affordable housing project on Harbor Road known as Harrington Circle (14 housing units). The Burlington Land Trust is buying the Harrington Circle residential units to be sold on a shared equity basis to people making no more than 80% Chittenden County median income level. The cost of the units (house, garage, yard space) is $182,000. The Burlington Community Land Trust is not paying the impact fees. The Town can waive 85% of recreation and education impact fees for the project plus an additional 5% if the units maintain their “affordable housing” status in perpetuity. Mr. Beldock noted his company is building the recreation fields on town land at a fixed price as part of the overall project.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report, dated 3/10/05. Dean Pierce pointed out the project is different because the units will be owned rather than rented.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the income data (i.e. median income in Shelburne versus Chittenden County, existing or projected information). Gregg Beldock stated the buyers are asked to provide two years of tax information. The housing units are sold for 50% of the average cost of a house in Chittenden County.  Rick Peterson asked if the waiver will have an impact on the affordability of the units.  Gregg Beldock explained his decision to provide affordable housing because the site lends itself to this type of housing and affordable housing is needed in Chittenden County.

 

Tucker Holland asked for a break down of the impact fees for the project, noting his calculation shows approximately $58,000 in fees, not $123,000. Mr. Beldock quoted a figure of $122,636 in impact fees, but could not provide a break down at this time.  Rick Peterson pointed out the recreation fields are being constructed for the benefit of the town at Bullrock’s expense, and this could be an argument in support of waiving the recreation impact fee. The housing units, however, will likely have children who will enter the school system so the education impact fees are necessary. Mr. Beldock mentioned his offer to sell the town 40 acres of land for the recreation fields at a cost of $360,000 and to build the fields at cost which is much less than what was paid to purchase the property initially. Also, students living in the housing units (located across the street from the school) will not need bus transportation to the school.

 

Rob Donahue, Shelburne Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee, recalled his committee requested a sidewalk be installed on the north side of Harbor Road, but this was not included in the project. Mr. Donahue underscored the continued need for a sidewalk on the north side of Harbor Road for safety reasons, and suggested the recreation fees or in-kind construction services be used to this end.  It was noted there is a path from the baseball fields to the Blodgett building as part of the project as well as a “bulb out” on Harbor Road to help safely cross Harbor Road.  There is also a sidewalk part way down Harbor Road on the north side of the street. A bike path along the side of the Blodgett building has been offered.

 

The Planning Commission discussed forwarding the request for a waiver of impact fees to the Selectboard. Tucker Holland felt the occupants of the housing units will likely use recreational and educational facilities in Shelburne, but the decision to waive the fees and at what percentage is the Selectboard’s purview. The Planning Commission concurred, clarifying the Planning Commission does not oppose the request and agrees the request should be forwarded to the Selectboard for action.  Gregg Beldock asked the Planning Commission to state their specific support for building affordable housing in Shelburne.  There was mention of other affordable housing projects in town.  Rick Peterson pointed out the Planning Commission has worked hard to ensure there is affordable housing in Shelburne. Following discussion of potential wording of a statement to the Selectboard, the consensus of the Planning Commission is to say the Planning Commission supports the Selectboard hearing the petition for waiver of impact fees by Bullrock Corp. with regard to the Harbor Road project (Harrington Circle residential units).

 

Mike Dussault and Peter Gibbs with Engineering Ventures appeared on behalf of the application.  A letter from the applicant’s wetlands consultant was given to the Planning Commission.  Tucker Holland mentioned Mike Dussault and Adam Portz worked on the plans for his house when it was being built, but felt this would not influence his review of the Sinha application. The Planning Commission felt Mr. Holland did not need to recuse himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Gibbs reviewed existing details on the site. Mr. Sinha owns three existing residential lots (subdivision occurred in 1977). One of the lots has an existing home. The other two lots are approved for residential development. Other residences on Sledrunner Road have an easement over Mr. Sinha’s property to access their property.  Test pits were done on the Sinha property. The wetlands have been delineated. A topographic and boundary survey has been done. A consultant was hired (Adam Portz with T.J.Boyle) to develop a plan for the site.

 

Adam Portz reviewed the property (in the Residential 1 and Residential 3 districts, 19.9 acres can be developed with nine units) and how the lot size, location of the houses and associated improvements to the land were decided (topography, vegetation, septic capacity, wetlands, drainage).  Access to the property would remain unchanged. There would be a shared driveway along the western side of the ridge to access three lots of 2.2 acres each. The lots are well proportioned and the houses are sited for natural light and preservation of vegetation. A small cottage lot will be added across from the existing cottage for a total of four homes on the site. Peter Gibbs clarified the lot with the existing house will be subdivided and a new house built. On the 10 acre parcel, two homes will be built. The six acre lot will remain as is. There will be a total of three new homes.  A community septic system located on the best soils on the site will serve the houses. Lot #1 (contains wetlands, natural resources, and buffer) will be common land. Lot #6 has a conservation easement to the common land to be owned by a homeowners association.  Rick Peterson suggested the easement be part of Lot #1. Mr. Gibbs explained under the PRD requirements there would not be enough square footage to create the additional lot.  Mike Dussault suggested the conservation easement line could be changed to the lot line.  The point is the area is protected.

 

Peter Gibbs reviewed the waste water treatment system which will pump effluent through an eco-bio filter before sending the water to the absorption field.  Improvements to Sledrunner Road were also discussed (entrance will be improved to slightly beyond where the new homes are being added).  More details on the waste water system, erosion control, and roadway improvements will be provided following sketch plan approval.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the future intent for parcel #5 (6.3 acre lake lot).  Mike Dussault stated the intent of the owner is not to include the lot in the subdivision, but to leave it as is for privacy. The property owner has not mentioned a desire to place any restrictions on the lot. Hilda White mentioned the Planning Commission likes to see a master plan for an entire property, and would need to know what is going to happen with parcel #5.  Mr. Dussault will find out the property owner’s intent.

 

Rick Peterson questioned why a new road is proposed through the wooded area when there is an existing access road on the 10 acre lot.  Adam Portz pointed out there are steep slopes on the land and it would be difficult to access the lots. Also, clearing of the vegetation and trees would be needed to extend the access road. The intention is to retain a buffer zone on the eastern side of the property and have as much privacy as possible. Kay Kraushaar observed the proposed road will be located along the highest point on the property which will require clearing along the ridge line.  Mike Dussault confirmed a portion of the roadway is along the ridge line, but then the road drops into Lot #2. Adam Portz explained the plan to work with the topography and follow the ridge line to decrease the amount of earthwork necessary. Further study of having the access road on the eastern side of the ridge can be done.  Rick Peterson pointed out if only two building lots on the 10 acre parcel were proposed, then access could be from Sledrunner Road and the slope issue could be avoided. Chairman Peterson commented the density on the 10 acre lot seems tight. Adam Portz stated the subdivision is in conformance with the Residential 3 zone. Rick Peterson pointed out the numbers can be made to work on the 10 acre lot, but under a PRD, that does not mean it is the best result.

 

Hilda White questioned if the open space is sufficient for active and passive recreational activities per the subdivision regulations (i.e. meets the spirit of the regulations) since the open space being offered is wetlands and the sewage treatment area.  Ms. White also felt the development is too intense for the area with three houses on 10 acres and the wetlands buffer on the other side. With a PRD, the Planning Commission must consider originality of design, but it is not certain the proposal addresses this.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/10/05.  A site walk map with color coding to match flags in the field was also submitted.  Dean Pierce asked if smaller homes are proposed on the cottage lots. Adam Portz clarified one of the dwellings is existing (Sinha house) and cottage size compared to neighboring houses.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Grant Bush, original developer of the property under discussion, provided the Planning Commission with a list of concerns. The number of house sites is out of character with the rural setting of the area, stated Mr. Bush, and does not support the 1977 subdivision which was intended to preserve the forested area.  The impact of the septic system and drainage on the lake and wetlands from six houses is of concern. The wetlands need to be studied in the springtime when water levels are high. There is a large volume of drainage. The 10’ access to the lake on the Zachary property was intended for the lots created in the 1977 subdivision. Now the access is proposed to be used by the new homes to be built. There will likely be additional boat moorings in an already overcrowded marina. The legality of combining lots and roads and the impact on the easement needs to be clarified. Regarding the six acre lot, the soils may be suitable for septic so there could be further subdivision and development in the future. Widening and paving Sledrunner Road is out of character with the area and will create more runoff. Also, the road crosses the wetlands. An Act 250 permit was required for the 1977 subdivision. Compliance regulations for the new project need to be investigated. The proposed development will impact wildlife in the area (deer, fox, turkey, goshawk) and decrease the core forest. The property was formerly part of the Webb estate and Shelburne Farms. The 1977 subdivision tried to keep as much of the land untouched as possible. The proposed development fractures up the land. Impact on the ridge line needs to be studied. Cutting trees to build houses with a view of the lake means the houses will be visible from the lake and the existing homes in the area. Traffic in the summer is heavy (people going to their moorings) and the curve in the road is unsafe. In addressing Mr. Bush’s concerns, Peter Gibbs stated the 10 acre lot has no building restrictions on it. There is discussion of putting restriction on the six acre lot to allow only one single family house.  Mr. Bush interjected the Act 250 permit affects the lot. In 1977, the lot was approved as a single house lot. Regarding the road, Mr. Gibbs agreed the speed of cars and the curve is dangerous. Regarding drainage, design approval for the sewer and storm water systems have to be secured. Per state regulations, a project can not increase the flow or detriment to adjoining properties.

 

Doug Riley, Sledrunner Properties, LLC, stated the lot lines set by Mr. Bush are the type and sized lot typical for the neighborhood.  One house might be visible, not a suburban landscape which is what will be visible with the proposal. The proposal is out of character with the rural neighborhood. The purpose of a PRD is to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Even the cottage with the garage next to it looks dense comparatively, and adding another house close to the cottage will appear even more dense.  The 10 acre lot is approved for one house so only a building permit is needed to use the lot in its present form. Three lots with a view are not necessary for use of the lot. The wetlands appear to begin a distance away from where the land drops off. Mr. Riley said Sledrunner Properties would like to hire a consultant to delineate the wetlands when the weather permits. The wetlands may be larger than is shown and the septic system may need to be relocated as a result.  The proposed mound system will be a 200’ long earthen dam. This is a good sized earth works on open country.  Mr. Riley proposed having a hydrogeologist look at the interaction of the large septic disposal fields on the adjacent wetlands.  The septic fields could possibly contaminant the wetlands.  Regarding the speed limit affecting sight distance, subdivision roads have 90˚ intersections. The proposed access road is not at 90˚ so it is nonconforming, and the access road is being brought into a curve.  The Planning Commission can avoid making the intersection more intense.  The access road crossing the wetlands is a serious consideration, stressed Mr. Riley.  Mike Dussault noted the state requires a hydrogeologist study the mound system to ensure conformance to state regulations.  Peter Gibbs pointed out an expert from the state was hired to do the wetlands delineation (done on August 10, 2004 for two days). Mr. Gibbs also stated the mound system is not viewed as an earthen dam. The curve in the road is dangerous, and there is agreement this is an opportunity to improve the intersection.  The easement for the additional lots can be on the Sinha lot or another access to the lake can be created.

 

David Pierson, neighbor, noted the neighbors have not been approached by the developers regarding the project, and it is overwhelming to see a site plan for the development and people on a site walk without any notice. Regarding the wetlands, there are lots of frogs and tadpoles. The wetlands should be reviewed when it is wet because it may be larger than what is shown on the plans. Mr. Gibbs interjected it is felt the wetlands delineation which was done by a consultant was done properly. Mr. Pierson stated the development will have an impact on the animals in the area. The 10’ easement to the lake is used discreetly by the existing neighbors, but with more people using the easement, there could be more noise. Also, increasing the number of moorings could be a problem. Mr. Pierson expressed concern the large lot which is not numbered like the other lots on the plan may be further developed.

 

Jim Carroll speaking on behalf of Lee Zachary and the impact of the development on his homestead observed the property on Shelburne Point is part of one of the better planned properties in the state (there is character, nature, investment in the community). Any development must look at the wildlife from a connectivity perspective. There are few forested wetlands and these should be preserved. Forested wetlands take a long time to grow and can not be manmade. There are old forest trees and a canopy which if cut opens the ridge line and exposes the trees to the wind, putting them at risk of blow over. The disturbance in the vegetation for the test pits is apparent.  There will be increased runoff from roofs, driveways, and roads, and this will increase peak runoff during snow melt and rain. Mr. Carroll stated the 10 acre lot with a single house is an appropriate fit. Mr. Zachary objects to the subdivision of the cottage lot as an inappropriate subdivision and misuse of a PRD to get a density bonus, continued Mr. Carroll. There are private utilities in the road. Also, the width of a Class 2 road can only be increased 25%. The road is narrow and steep.  There are numerous life quality impacts that need to be considered, stated Mr. Carroll. The neighbors’ concerns and comments were not taken into consideration. The applicant is encouraged to back off and withdraw the application and discuss plans with the neighbors.

 

Tucker Holland asked if there is an historical plan for the area as part of the Webb estate. Grant Bush stated pine trees were densely planted around the Webb estate. The trees go around Sledrunner Point. There is lots of pine scatter due to the wind. Shelburne Farms hired the first national forest supervisor to do planting around the Webb estate.  Mr. Bush reviewed other connections between the applicant’s property and the Webb estate.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jim Collins and Kevin Worden appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jim Collins reported on his discussion with VTrans regarding the Route 7 improvements and egress from 59 Webster Road.  The driveway width will be reduced to 25’ and angled toward the north in support of exiting to the right (north) only. “One-Way” signs will be posted. VTrans has verbally agreed to mitigate the grade on Webster Road (change will be three feet), but there are no set plans at this time.  The town right-of-way on Webster Road is adequate space for a sidewalk.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/10/05. There were no further comments.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Fritz Horton explained the request to change the zoning regulations for exception to setbacks for a handicap ramp (Section 1690.6 – Exceptions to Setbacks).  Anzi Jacobs explained her medical condition (low bone density) and the need to reduce risk of falls. An elevator is needed in their home in order to move from the garage into the house under cover from the weather. There is an eight foot rise from the garage to the house. An elevator will encroach on the setback and the Zoning Board denied a variance. Ms. Jacobs stated she and her husband want to remain in their home of 31 years, but need a protected access.  Mr. Horton noted the zoning regulations may need to be revised to allow the addition of provisions on existing houses to address access by elderly and/or handicapped occupants. With the Jacobs’ house, a ramp would be 100’ long and require snow removal. An elevator will require 50 s.f. of area and no snow removal.  Mr. Horton submitted suggested changes to the zoning ordinance to allow modification to existing houses for enclosed lifts for handicapped persons.  Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission must look at any zoning change relative to what is needed by and of benefit to the entire community. Dean Pierce suggested the language address an accessory structure applied to an existing building, provide a minimum setback (5’), and require a licensed professional’s opinion on the need for the accessory structure.  Mr. Pierce will draft suggested language for review and action at the March 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Peter Richardson submitted a suggested amendment to Section 1640.2 of the bylaws regarding redevelopment of a PUD (document titled “Redevelopment PUD”). The proposed language provides the flexibility and density to redevelop the Shelburne Inn site properly, stated Mr. Richardson, and covers minimum lot size, frontage, setbacks, building coverage and height. The conditional use and permitted use approvals remain unchanged. The density formula is based on 10,000 s.f. for nonresidential use increased in 1,000 s.f. increments for greater than 10,000 s.f. nonresidential uses. Dwelling units are 2,500 s.f.  Parking will follow the current regulations. There was discussion of the building height increasing to 40’. Mr. Richardson stated the current allowance of 35’ is acceptable.

 

Fritz Horton spoke in support of increasing building height as an incentive to property owners to increase the density on their lots when redeveloping. The Shelburne Shopping Plaza was cited as an example for redevelopment potential.

 

Dean Pierce mentioned extending the proposed provisions (by Mr. Richardson) to include the area of the town’s sand/salt shed (to be built).

 

The Planning Commission will take the proposed “Redevelopment PUD” language under consideration for action at the March 24^th Planning Commission meeting.

 

Robert Miller and Andy Rowe appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself and left the meeting. Kay Kraushaar left the meeting.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Andy Rowe reviewed the buildings on the 32 acre site (factory and shipping & assembly and a 60,000 s.f. addition), landscaping, and berm. The exits to the buildings are per Labor & Industry requirements. The vestibule has been removed as well as two lights. The 4’ x 10’ cooling tower is part of the air conditioning/cooling system for the building and is not considered a structure.

 

Comment was made about construction being done without prior approval. Chairman Peterson stated per the Town Attorney’s advice, the cooling unit can not be located in the PUD perimeter buffer and the Planning Commission can not waive the buffer requirement.  Mr. Miller stated changing from a PUD to a subdivision is being investigated which will change the setback requirement.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 3/10/05. There were no further comments.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Nancy Hinsdale, 153 Covington Lane, expressed concern about concessions provided with a PUD. The warehouse building planned to be constructed in one corner of the property is pushing into the buffer area. Ms. Hinsdale requested the rules be followed. The cooling tower should be moved to another location. Ms. Hinsdale also expressed concern about the possible change from PUD to a subdivision, and the effect on the residential and agricultural sections of the property. There are restrictive covenants (some have expired, but others have not) saying no development within a 100’ arc extending from a point in the northerly corner of the property. Another covenant says no outdoor events for the general public on the property, but there have been events held.  Ms. Hinsdale stated there have been other agreed upon provisions that have been broken, but complaints have not been made (overhead door on the east side of the building that was not part of the original plan and the building with the mezzanine appears as two-stories). Ms. Hinsdale asked for assurance Mr. Miller will follow the approved plan.

 

Robert Miller explained the reason to dissolve the PUD and seek a subdivision is so only two landowners are involved with the property (Miller and URSA).  Mr. Miller also stated the world is not perfect and land is not all the same. There are situations that arise after the fact and decisions are made. Air conditioning for the building was an afterthought. Regarding the arc mentioned by Ms. Hinsdale, the area will remain as agreed upon. Mr. Miller assured under no circumstance will anything be located within 50’ of the property line.  The location of the cooling unit was chosen as the best location. To move the unit will cost nearly $5,000, and the unit will be more visible. Also, noise from the unit could impact the nearby condominiums. Mr. Miller suggested the money to move the cooling unit could instead be contributed to the town sidewalk or bike path fund.  Andy Rowe suggested the cooling unit be allowed to remain where it is provided subdivision approval is secured.  The application to change to a subdivision must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield, Redstone Commercial Group, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Wakefield explained the change in the warehouse area (12,000 s.f.) from a machine shop to warehouse/storage for wholesale storage and distribution. An outside storage area of 75’ x 122’ will be fenced. The existing parking lot will be paved. There will be 19 parking spaces. Tractor-trailer deliveries will be at the back of the building. There will be a fork lift and small crane for loading/unloading trucks. Office traffic will use the front of the building. There is ample room between buildings for truck turnaround so backing up will not be required.  There is substantial landscaping in the lot 1 area. There will be a chain link fence with screen.  Trucks at the back of the building will not be visible from Route 7.  Hours of operation are 8 a.m to 5 p.m. There will be a maximum of six deliveries per day (12 trip ends). A total of two or three trucks will be incoming/outgoing per day. Material will be warehoused and moved as orders are placed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 3/10/05. Dean Pierce asked about lighting, noting the existing lighting likely does not comply with current requirements. Mr. Wakefield stated there is a small shielded light above the doorway which illuminates the parking lot. There is also an existing street light and a flood light by the loading dock. No changes are proposed to the lighting. There was discussion of bringing lighting into conformance with current regulations. Mr. Wakefield agreed to bring the lighting into compliance.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

March 17, 2005 – work session; March 24,2005 – village plan presentation.

 

11.       ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at midnight.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland. (Claude Lapierre and Fred Schmidt were absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner (left meeting early).

OTHERS PRESENT:            Larry Williams, Ray Denault, Peter Richardson, Kevin Clayton, David Webster, Gwen Webster, Paul Bohne, Margery Sharp.

AGENDA:     

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes of March 10, 2005

3.      Design Review Application-Citizens Financial Group/ Philadelphia Sign Co

4.      Consideration of Possible Zoning Changes

5.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2005

 

 

Ray Denault of Twin State Signs appeared on behalf of the applicant to describe the request for new signs at the former Marble Bank/Albank property.  The color scheme  Mr. Denault asserted that the approval recommended by the Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission (HP&DRC) encompassed the façade and free standing signs, as well as lettering on the ATM machine and elsewhere.  Town Planner Dean Pierce explained that Mr. Denault is incorrect. The HP&DRC’s recommendation excludes the ATM.  Planning Commissioners discussed options for resolving the exclusion of the ATM. Consensus was reached that the applicant should return to the HP&DRC for additional review of the ATM.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

Planning Commissioners discussed the proposal to amend the bylaws to expand the list of setback exemptions for structures providing access to persons with physical disabilities. The Planning Commission reached consensus on language previously prepared by staff, specifically, to amend Paragraph 1 of 1690.6 so that it reads

 

A structure providing conveyance and/or containing equipment constructed solely to provide access for the disabled to a residence or other building existing as of the effective date of this subsection shall be exempt from setback provisions provided that:

a) a licensed design professional certifies that no reasonable alternative is available and the encroachment is the minimum necessary to provide such access;

b) the structure is not less than five feet from side/rear property lines; and

c) the structure is not less than 15 feet from the front property line or, where a lot is crossed by an access easement or right of way, from the closest edge such easement or right of way

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried

 

Planning Commissioners resumed their discussion of a possible zoning bylaw amendment that would create a “Redevelopment PUD” section applicable to the Village District.  Peter Richardson and Larry Williams, new owners of the Shelburne Inn property, spoke to the need for and desirability of changes that would provide flexibility and predictability. 

 

[Dean Pierce departed meeting]

 

Planning Commissioners discussed language developed by Rick Peterson and entertained questions and comments from audience members. As the meeting drew to a close, the Planning Commission agreed to continue discussion of the zoning change at 6:00 PM on Wednesday, March 30, immediately prior to the panel discussion on Development Review Boards (DRBs).

 

 

5.         ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by _________, SECOND by _________, to adjourn the meeting.

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:40PM.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Dean Pierce