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

 

STAFF PRESENT:  Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Marge Sharp, Chad Anderson, Jeff Jackson, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Stanton Hall, Scott Jaunich, Paul Duchesneau, Kristi Anderson, Regina Thompson, Ronald Meilleur, JoAnne Precourt, Edward Precourt, Bob Kelly, Diane Kelly, Peter Richardson, Mark Hamelin, David White, Steve Vock, Wade Weathers.

 

AGENDA:     

1.      Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (3/24/05)

2.      PRD Sketch Plan Review, Kellyview LLC/Edward&Joanne Precourt/Kevin&Elaine Cieplicki, 2024 Spear Street, 20 Westview Drive & 37 Barstow Road (SUB05-03)

3.      Sketch Plan Review, W.Thomas Anderson, 941 Mt. Philo Road (SUB05-04)

4.      Sketch Plan Review, Willard T. Jackson, et al & Jeffrey Jackson, 4533 & 4539 Harbor Road (SUB05-05)

5.      Zoning Change Requests: Redevelopment PUD in Village District; Food Service-Retail Hybrid Use in Village Core Overlay District; Vineyard Related Uses in Rural 2 District

6.      Other Business, Correspondence

7.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the 3/24/05 minutes with the following corrections:

Page 1, Item #3, 2^nd sentence – delete “the color scheme”;

Page 2, MOTION – insert “Holland” following “Tucker”;

Page 3, MOTION to adjourn – insert “Reg Gignoux” and “Hilda White”.

VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

Ed Precourt, manager of Kellyview, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Precourt gave a brief history of the property on the corner of Barstow Road and Spear Street. The current application involves 22.45 acres which is the last parcel of the Kelly farm. A three lot subdivision forming lots of approximately 7.5 acres is proposed. The lot layout is driven by the wetlands on the property. Two of the newly created lots and possibly all three lots will have access from Spear Street.

 

Rick Peterson questioned why a PRD (Planned Residential Development) is being sought versus a standard subdivision since no common land is shown on the site plan. Dean Pierce explained the project was discussed with the applicant and the Town Attorney. There are issues with the property that can only be overcome with a PRD (otherwise the bylaws would need to be amended). The proposal is for the new houses to be on the 22.5 acre parcel while the septic waste water systems on the Precourt property to the west (five acres).  The reason the PRD buffer is being relocated to the north is to avoid the eastern side of the Precourt property. The existing Precourt lot has a waste water treatment system for the Precourt house plus the Cieplicki house north of Barstow Road, and the Town Attorney is not in favor of having this arrangement reoccur, stated Mr. Dean. If the Cieplicki lot is not included for a buffer, then the existing Precourt house is too close and in the buffer zone. Paul Duchesneau stated soil and site conditions on the 22 acre parcel are not conducive to on-site septic systems. Spear Street does divide the soil types. There is a significant amount of wetlands on the 22 acres (at least half the parcel). Most of the property (86%) will remain open. There was discussion of determining developable acreage with wetlands on the property (i.e. subtract the wetlands from the acreage). Dean Pierce pointed out under the PRD regulations, the Planning Commission has some discretion. Kay Kraushaar interjected the PRD regulations also say the Planning Commission should consider site limitations that decrease the amount of developable land. Mr. Duchesneau stated the buildable area for each house will be 15,000 s.f. (lawn and driveways included). A conservation area which is greater than 90% of the entire parcel can be created. There are class 3 wetlands (which are really wet meadows) on the site.  Mr. Precourt suggested there could be stipulations placed on the open land that it is mowed once a year, there will be no building on the property, trees can be planted, but lawn area can not be created.

 

Rick Peterson commented the town has identified the easterly side of Spear Street as a rural area. Agricultural land is useful when it is not chopped up into smaller parcels. Mr. Peterson questioned the potential use of the open land. The location of the proposed houses and the impact on the view were discussed.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if one driveway will serve the three proposed houses. Mr. Precourt stated two houses will share one driveway. It may be difficult for all three houses to share a driveway.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/14/05. Dean Pierce mentioned comments by town staff, including the suggestions to consolidate utility crossings drilled under the road, ensuring the culvert under Barstow Road has the capacity to handle the new development, and adding fire hydrants. It was noted the water line is on Spear Street. Mr. Pierce stated the Paths Committee asked about bike lanes along the property on Spear Street and Barstow Road.

 

Stanton Hall, 139 Barstow Road, asked about easements in perpetuity for the septic system arrangement. Mr. Precourt stated there will be a permanent easement to the property.  Mr. Hall asked about the wetlands in the building envelopes. Mr. Duchesneau stated according to the Corps. of Engineers a certain amount of coverage in class 3 wetlands is allowed. The recommendation is for less than half an acre of impact on wetlands within a parcel of 20 acres.  Mr. Hall asked about the size and height of the proposed houses.  Mr. Precourt estimated the houses will be up to 4,500 s.f. in size and adhere to the town’s height regulations. The houses will be brick or color toned to blend with the area.

 

Kristin Anderson, 158 Westview Drive, stated the leach field abutting the Thompson property and storm water runoff is of concern. There are two ponds now for runoff. Ms. Anderson asked if there is a backup site for the leach field. Mr. Duchesneau stated water on the east of the 22 acre parcel will remain there (will not drain to the west). The soil and site conditions on the Precourt lot are conducive to on-site septic. There will be a backup system for the leach field.

 

Ken Miller, 282 Westview Drive, questioned having three on-site septic systems on a five acre lot. Rick Peterson explained under the zoning and planning regulations of the town, five acres is the minimum lot size for the zone, but easements must be subtracted from that figure. With the property under discussion, there is less than five acres remaining once the easements are subtracted, and that is why a PRD was filed. With a PRD the Planning Commission can “shrink” the lots. The number of septic systems that can be supported depends on the soil and depth of ground water. Mr. Miller commented on runoff, noting the residents on Westview Drive already experience water runoff.

 

A question was asked about the VAST trail on the 22 acre parcel. Mr. Precourt stated the VAST trail is on the Marcellino property.

 

There was brief discussion of nearby lots that could be developed. Reg Gignoux asked if the land abutting the 22 acre parcel is owned by Kellyview. Mr. Precourt said it is not.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to schedule a site walk on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. (applicant will stake out the wetlands). VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to continue the Kellyview PRD review until 4/28/05. VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

Chad Anderson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Anderson reviewed the site plan showing the proposed three lot subdivision. The boundary line with the Hyde property should not have been on the original site plan and has been removed. Septic systems will be on Lot #3.  There was lengthy discussion of Lot #3. Mr. Anderson noted the configuration is to have adequate road frontage to meet the requirement. Lots #1 and #2 have frontage on the road that is part of Lot #3. Mr. Anderson said his father wants to continue to have control of the driveway. The back portion of Lot #3 has been used for agricultural purposes for the past 30 years and this will not likely change. The applicant acknowledged a written statement to this effect is needed to address the use of the lot. It was noted there is no easy access to the property for any other purpose than agriculture.

 

Fred Schmidt asked about a trail easement. The applicant indicated a path running north/south could be considered.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/14/05.  Dean Pierce stated the Natural Resources Committee clarified their recommendation that there be perpetual conservation of some portions of Lot #3.

 

None.

 

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to declare the application submitted by W. Thomas Anderson for 941 Mt. Philo Road a minor subdivision. VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to approve the sketch plan submitted by W.Thomas Anderson for subdivision of an existing 46.2 acre parcel with a single family residence at 941 Mt. Philo Road into three lots with the following conditions:

1.         In collaboration with the Shelburne Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee, one or more concepts for trail or path easements shall be proposed as part of the final plan application.

2.         In collaboration with the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee, one or more concepts for conserving the agricultural portions of Lot #3 shall be proposed as part of the final plan application.

VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

4.    SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, WILLARD T. JACKSON, et al & JEFFREY JACKSON, 4533 & 4539 HARBOR ROAD (SUB05-05) Rick Peterson announced his affiliation with the Vermont Land Trust which expressed interest in the Jackson property in the past.  Reg Gignoux announced his affiliation with Lake Champlain Land Trust, the Jackson family, and some of the consultants working on the Jackson project.  There was consensus Mr. Peterson and Mr. Gignoux did not need to recuse themselves.

 

David White, Steve Vock, Mark Hamelin, Wade Weathers, Scott Jaunich, and Jeff Jackson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

David White reviewed the time and effort put forth to develop a plan driven by Mr. Jackson’s desire to let the land dictate the development to occur. The attributes of the site were reviewed.  There are woods around the perimeter and precipitous cliffs. The housing sites were located to preserve the land and protect the natural resources.  Six house sites that fit comfortably on the parcel have been identified.  A boundary line adjustment is needed for Lot #1 to allow for an on-site septic system and replacement system on the lot.

 

Rick Peterson asked why there are two accesses shown to Lot #4. David White stated two houses are not anticipated, but a decision on which access might be desired could not be made so both options were shown.  Mr. Peterson asked if Jeff Jackson’s property will be part of the development. Mr. White stated a homeowners association will be formed and Jeff Jackson will be a member, but his property is not part of the subdivision proposal. Also, the proposal is not a PRD. There is no common land as a lot, but there will be an easement to the middle area which will be common land. There will be protective covenants, conservation covenants, and passive recreation (hiking) on the middle section of land.

 

Hilda White asked about the buildings that exist presently on Lot #1. Mr. White stated the buildings will be taken down. The buildings were left on the site plan to be shown as an option for siting a building in the woods.

 

Mr. White discussed view of the houses from the lake, noting the woods, cliffs and bluffs effectively screen and buffer the houses from view unless a boat is quite a distance out in open water (and then it will be hard to discern details). There has been some clearing of invasive species in the woods, such as Buckthorn and Honeysuckle.  As the subdivision is designed, the perception of people around the point will not discern a difference. Rick Peterson mentioned the potential for the new property owners to cut down mature trees to open up the view. Mr. White stated the Jacksons are committed to a new forestry plan, and language could be included regarding tree clearing to protect the point. A management plan is needed to determine appropriate cutting and still provide adequate screening and protection.  Jeff Jackson noted there are large oak trees on the west shore, but the canopy is high enough to allow a view of the lake. Also, the leaves are off the deciduous trees most of the year.

 

David White reviewed the access road and driveways. Jeff Jackson’s driveway will be the beginning portion of the access road, widened to 16’ and to follow the topography of the land so there is very little cut and fill. Significant trees are avoided. The road is not looped in a circle. Lots #1 and #2 will be served by a leg of the access road. Lots #3, #4, #5, and #6 will be served by the other leg of the access road. The conceptual location of the driveway for Lot #3 is not shown because it is not clear where the house will likely be located. Kay Kraushaar mentioned keeping the field open. Mr. White pointed out buildable areas are shown. Houses will not cover the entire lot, but flexibility in location was shown.

 

Fred Schmidt expressed dismay that such a special area in Shelburne can not remain open and in the public sector.  Rick Peterson asked if any form of public access has been considered. Mr. White stated the land does not meet the circumstances when a path is called for (connectivity) per the town plan and paths committee report. Chairman Peterson quoted the section of the town plan relative to “access to points of attractiveness”. Mr. White pointed out negotiations with the Vermont Land Trust and Lake Champlain Land Trust did not come to fruition, though there is still interest by the property owner in discussing the sale of all or a portion of the land.  It is a special piece of property, acknowledged Mr. White, and it is taxed as a special property. The land is expensive to maintain. Much hard work was done to preserve the integrity of the property while getting the value of the property. There was not a way to allow public access without liability. Only six units are proposed versus the 19 units which would be allowed per the zoning, and there will be language precluding future subdivision of the lots.

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/14/05.  Dean Pierce noted boundary line adjustment terminology is not in the subdivision bylaws. Jeff Jackson’s parcel is part of a large two lot subdivision. Comments from town staff include hydrants or ponds for fire protection, and water service extension. Also, the location or size of the building envelopes may need to be adjusted. The Paths Committee wanted a turnaround on the point on the southern or southwest side of the property.  The request is for a minimal impact rest stop at the turn on Harbor Road (carve out approximately half an acre with 150’ of broad lake frontage so bikers and pedestrians can stop, picnic, rest, turnaround). David White pointed out the last section of Harbor Road and the shoreline is part of Shelburne Shipyard property. Staff will research if there are legal rights for public access to the shipyard gate.  Dean Pierce noted the Natural Resources Committee called for easements and that the easements be held by a third party.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if a PRD was considered and if frontage requirements can be met without a PRD. David White replied it was decided a PRD is not needed or wanted. Section 1810.24 states frontage includes frontage on water so frontage requirements are met. There is agreement access and frontage are two separate issues. Mr. Pierce said he is seeking a legal opinion on differentiation of frontage and dimensional requirements. The ramification could be the need to extend the road to artificially create frontage or do a PRD.

 

Rick Peterson noted public water is part of the application, and asked if extension of public water service requires a PRD. Mr. White stated public water is on the property presently. Jeff Jackson has a 6” main with a fire hydrant.

 

Reg Gignoux suggested the setback from the water’s edge be increased to 150’ to accommodate continuing erosion of the shoreline. The gardens at Shelburne Farms are overhanging the beach as an example of the erosion that is taking place. Approximately three inches of shore are eroded each year.

 

Dean Pierce asked why the road was proposed to be paved if the objective is to maintain a rural atmosphere. Mr. White replied a paved road is easier to maintain, avoids erosion and the problems of mud season. Also, it was thought the public works standards were to be followed. The total buildable envelope is 14% of the 93 acre total. The roads (40’ right-of-way) with pavement add 3% for a total of 17% developed. Jeff Jackson stated his driveway is paved.

 

Dean Pierce mentioned the low water mark and compliance to the Public Trust Doctrine.  David White stated the surveyor indicated the low water mark must be shown. Steve Vock said he will investigate the matter further.

 

Rick Peterson mentioned a covenant saying no further subdivision. Mr. White agreed the covenant can be permanent and third party enforceable.  Fred Schmidt suggested a permanent covenant for the existing forest management plan and any enhancements.

 

Ken Albert, Shelburne resident, stated the property is of national significance and should be given serious effort townwide to see what can be done to have a better blend of public and private ownership. The Planning Commission should pursue this matter.

 

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to schedule a site visit on Monday, 4/25/05, at 4 p.m. (applicant will show the 35’ building height, mark the building sites, and the Planning Commission will do an evaluation of the view from the lake). VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to continue the sketch plan hearing for the Jackson property on Harbor Road until May 12, 2005. VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

Proposed amendments to Section 1640.2.F.1,2,3,5 to address rehabilitation of existing structures in the Village Core Overlay District were reviewed. It was suggested in Section 1640.2.F.3.e that the words “used nor” be inserted in the statement saying “…however, said structures shall not be used nor altered, enlarged, or otherwise redeveloped…”. There was lengthy discussion of lot coverage and the need for some green space (i.e. not having a lot totally paved) to maintain the character of the village. It was felt the Planning Commission could work from a site plan to ensure there is green space with each development under review.  Dean Pierce will draft language on maximum lot coverage to address the issue of green space.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to warn a public hearing on May 12, 2005 on the proposed zoning amendment to Section 1640 as presented, and to authorize the Planning Commission Chairman to draft the appropriate report.

DISCUSSION: There was discussion of submitting all the proposed zoning changes to the Selectboard for action rather than submitting changes piecemeal. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the appearance of favoritism.

     CALL THE QUESTION by Fred Schmidt. Discussion ceased.

VOTING:  2 ayes, 4 nays (Gignoux, White, Kraushaar, LaPierre); motion carried.

 

There was discussion of accessory agricultural uses and the definition of “Integrated Agriculture”.  The Commission felt integrated agricultural enterprises is a new concept for the town and the activities need to be incidental to farming (i.e. less than 49% of gross income). The need to attract the public to activities in order for the integrated operation to be successful was mentioned. A proposed definition of “Integrated Agriculture” was read. It was noted the Agency of Agriculture follows the state’s definition of farming and any deviation is up to local zoning to handle. Product can be sold, but tasting, tours, and other activities are not considered part of farming per the state’s definition.  According to the Vermont Attorney General, any activity outside of the state’s definition of farming is handled by local bylaws.

 

The Planning Commission wanted more time to review the proposed language and zoning changes.

 

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to continue discussion of the proposed zoning changes before scheduling a public hearing.

DISCUSSION: Kay Kraushaar commented on the lack of time to thoroughly review the proposed zoning changes and the pressure to act on the changes in a piecemeal fashion rather than handling them as a complete package. The Planning Commission concurred.

VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

There was further discussion of the proposed R-PUD zoning amendment (Section 1640), noting the thoroughness of the draft language and that the Planning Commission had time to review the matter at two previous meetings.

 

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to warn a public hearing on the R-PUD proposed zoning amendment for May 12, 2005, and authorize the Planning Commission Chairman to draft the appropriate report.  VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

6.  OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE None.

 

7.  ADJOURNMENT  MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.

 

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

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Marge Sharp, David Webster, David McNees, Kristin Anderson, Thomas Bonnetle, Kevin Cieplicki, Ron Meilleur, Ed Precourt, Jo-Anne Precourt, Lil Cieplicki, Henry Sorrell, Manny Gurowski, Paul Duchesneau, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Scott Prom.

AGENDA:     

1.      Call to Order

2.      Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment

3.      Approval of Minutes (4/14/05)

4.      Design Review, Clayton Investments/Weiliff Inc., 97 Falls Road, (DR05-07)

5.      Site Plan Review, Lake Champlain Transportation/Manny Gurowski & Tray Pecor, 2997 Shelburne Road (SP95-6R2)

6.      PRD Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Kellyview LLC/Edward&Joanne Precourt/Kevin&Elaine Cieplicki, 2024 Spear Street, 20 Westview Drive & 37 Barstow Road (SUB05-03)

7.      Zoning Change Request: Vineyard Related Uses in Rural 2 District

8.      Discussion of Plan Update/Relationship to Village Plan Update

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.

 

Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and explained the proposed amendment to the zoning bylaws to modify setback requirements to allow encroachment by internal structural accommodations (i.e. elevators) for access by persons with disabilities.  Handicap ramps are exempt from side yard setback requirements. It was noted the report prepared for the proposed amendment is required per 24 V.S.A. 4441c.  There was discussion of the need to confirm the resident of the building is disabled and a permanent resident. There was also discussion of new house construction built to the setback and then needing the additional structural accommodation which encroaches into the setback at a later date. It was recognized there is some potential for abuse of the regulations.  The wording of the subsection was amended by deleting the words “residence or other”. The language is currently being reviewed by the Town Attorney. Any comments will be forwarded to the Selectboard.  There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.

 

 

 

David McNees appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. McNees described the new sign and post at the former Gillians. The sign will read “bistro sauce”. No changes to the existing sign lighting is proposed.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/28/05.

 

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Manny Gurowski and Henry Sorrell appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Gurowski explained the plan to refresh the paint on the building at 2997 Shelburne Road (former Bond Auto Store) and prepare the inside space for offices (to be occupied by National Life Insurance) and a hair salon (O’Brien’s).  Landscaping will be done (flower boxes, reseeding the lawn) and the driveway will be redone (paving and gravel). Lighting will be restored on the north end of the building.  The overhead door on the north can accommodate freight deliveries if there are any. The signs will be repainted with the new tenants’ names. The curb cut for the entrance will be off of Hullcrest Drive. The access on Route 7 will be eliminated.  There are eight parking spaces by the main entrance of the building which could be used for handicap parking. There are 32 parking spaces on the property.  A handicap ramp into the building on the north end is being built.  Both tenants will use the front entrance to the building. National Life will have five full time employees and two part time employees at the site and some client visits. The hair salon will have three or four operators and there will be a steady turnover of clients.  The vacant land will remain open for now.  There was lengthy discussion of the parking layout. It was noted the diagonal parking shown on the site plan is angled in the wrong direction.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/28/05.  It was noted the handicap parking spaces need to be delineated on the site plan.  The amount of parking needed for the uses in the building needs to be detailed along with the required number of handicap parking spaces.  The site plan also should reflect the entrance(s) to the site, the entrance to the building, the loading dock location, traffic circulation on the site (vehicle and pedestrian), landscaping, dumpster location, and lighting (must conform to current regulations).

 

Tom Bonnetle, 72 Hullcrest Drive, requested the existing tree line remain unchanged because the trees act as a buffer from Route7. Also, the dumpster was on the east side of the building with the previous business, but it was not screened.  Mr. Bonnetle asked for a copy of the revised site plan.  Dean Pierce will provide the requested information.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Ed Precourt, manager of Kellyview, LLC, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

There was discussion of the application for a PRD versus a standard subdivision.  Chairman Peterson pointed out a PRD should be an innovative design which provides for open space. The applicant explained according to his engineer a PRD is needed for the off-site septic arrangement. The land is part of the original farm which was subdivided. The parcels are owned by family members.  Kay Kraushaar commented to include the pre-existing lots across the road from the parcel under discussion has nothing to do with a PRD. There is nothing creative about the proposal (such as cluster housing, maintaining open space) to qualify the plan as a PRD.  Dean Pierce stated essentially a plan that survives PRD review by the Planning Commission is a PRD, though most PRD proposals do look different than the current proposal. The Town Attorney advised the proposal can be brought before the Planning Commission as a PRD. Paul Duchesneau, engineer for the applicant, stated the proposal is in keeping with a PRD in that 85% of the land will remain open. Hilda White interjected the land to remain open are wetlands (not buildable and not useable).

 

There was further discussion of the proposal being a PRD (i.e. with two houses together in the meadow, one house by the tree line, and the remainder of the parcel open).  Rick Peterson pointed out cutting up the land negates the agricultural value. The Town Plan dictates promoting agricultural use and rural character in the district.  Ed Precourt stated the 22 acre parcel is not hayed (no crops are grown on the land). The land is brush hogged each year. The soils have not been tended to for agricultural use. The Planning Commission noted changes can occur in the future and the land could be in agricultural use. Mr. Precourt stated the Kelly family wanted the property for the grandchildren, and it is unfair to require the family to keep the land open for potential agricultural use 50 years in the future. The proposed development is in line with other development in the area, stressed Mr. Precourt.  Claude LaPierre suggested locating the houses on the east side of the property. Mr. Precourt stated the wetlands impact of the building envelope (house, lawn, driveway) was considered when the sites were identified (less than ½ acre of wetlands impacted).  Kay Kraushaar suggested the houses be located along Barstow Road. Mr. Precourt explained views would be blocked and the location does not mimic the rest of the development along Spear Street and Barstow Road (i.e. houses are set back from the road and spaced apart from each other).

 

Kay Kraushaar asked what the acreage would be with the wetlands subtracted from the total acres. Paul Duchesneau replied this has not been calculated.  Reg Gignoux asked if the proposed houses will be sold. Mr. Precourt confirmed the lots will be sold and not necessarily to family members.  Reg Gignoux stated access to the lots must be from Barstow Road rather than Spear Street.  Ed Precourt pointed out a driveway serving three houses will be built more like an access road (i.e. 24’ wide).  Rick Peterson noted with a PRD, the width of the driveway can be reduced.  Rick Peterson suggested if there are to be three lots, the houses should be located in the northeast corner and the remainder of the parcel remain open. Chairman Peterson suggested three lots may be too many for the parcel. Ed Precourt replied the plan was to be reasonable and blend with what is there. Locating three houses in the northeast corner would be cramming them in there (Rick Peterson clarified the term is “clustering”). The corridors can remain open or the building envelopes can be decreased in size with the houses located as proposed, stated Mr. Precourt. Reg Gignoux asked how the open lot will be managed and conserved. Mr. Precourt stated there will be deed restrictions on the conserved land to allow mowing once a year. Rick Peterson stated the long view that the land might have productive agricultural use is not supported by having the houses cut up the land.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 4/28/05.  Kay Kraushaar expressed willingness to consider the application as a PRD only if the lot layout is more innovative and there is flexibility in design (i.e. grouping the houses against the tree line and not subdividing the parcel into three equal lots each with a house). The Planning Commission agreed houses on a ridge line with huge lawns is not good planning for Shelburne.

 

Kevin Cieplicki, neighbor, questioned how the wetlands can become agricultural land. Mr. Cieplicki also explained the tax burden of the land on the family, and how the family wants to work with the town to find a solution. Rick Peterson noted the Planning Commission is charged with finding the best design for the site and a PRD may or may not be that design.  Mr. Precourt offered to look at the building envelopes to maintain the views and review the driveway layout.  There was discussion of access from Spear Street versus Barstow Road (the driving range has access from Spear Street because the lot had frontage on Spear Street only).  Chairman Peterson pointed out having access to the parcel from Spear Street further cuts up the land.

 

Kristin Anderson, 158 Westview Drive, expressed concern about storm water run off and the quality of the run off water. Clustering of the houses is not wanted by the residents in the area because it is not like the rest of the neighborhood.  Ed Precourt assured drainage will be addressed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

1.         Plans submitted with any Preliminary Plan application shall revise the project layout so lots are served by a single access drive intersecting Barstow Road.

2.         Plans submitted with any Preliminary Plan application shall revise the project layout to minimize impacts on open land; options include placing small (20,000 s.f.) building envelopes along the eastern and southern edges of the property or closer to Spear Street and Barstow Road.

3.         Any Preliminary Plan application shall contain detailed information demonstrating how open space will be protected from future development; options include conservation and/or agricultural easements or other legal mechanisms.

4.         Any Preliminary Plan application shall contain information demonstrating that the applicant has consulted with Shelburne Public Works regarding the need to increase the size of culverts in the vicinity of the project.

5.         Any Preliminary Plan application shall contain information demonstrating that the applicant consulted with officials at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources regarding storm water permitting and on-site wastewater disposal permitting.

6.         Any Preliminary Plan application shall contain information responding to comments made by the Shelburne Paths Committee.

7.         Any Preliminary Plan application shall contain information responding to comments made by the Shelburne Fire Chief and the Director of the Water Department.

8.         The application shall include all other requested information identified in the Preliminary Plan Checklist contained in the Town of Shelburne Subdivision Procedures and Application.

VOTING:  1 ayes, 5 nays (Peterson, Gignoux, Schmidt, White, Kraushaar); motion did not carry.

 

Following review of suggested language for Integrated Agricultural Activities, the following amendments were made:

1.         Change “R-1 Zone” to “R-1 and R-2 Zones” where referenced in the section.

2.         In the first sentence of Section 1810.3, move the word “horticultural” to precede “viticultural”.

3.         Include the word “storage” in the list of integrated agricultural activities.

4.         Insert “and cultural” in the statement of secondary integrated agricultural activities reading “hosting of educational and cultural events incidental to farming or the farm’s activities”.

 

Following lengthy discussion of the need to provide financial records for secondary incidental activities, the Planning Commission agreed the farmer must provide certification of percentages of revenue generated by these activities and any supporting information upon request.

 

Comment from the Town Attorney on the suggested language is needed.

 

It was agreed the schedule for the update of the Town Plan shall not be driven by the Village Plan update.

 

Rick Peterson reported on the discussion by the Selectboard regarding the establishment of a Development Review Board (DRB). It was noted members of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board were not involved in the dialogue. Rick Peterson will discuss this matter with the Town Manager and Chairman of the Selectboard.  A joint meeting with the Selectboard, Planning Commission, and Zoning Board is needed.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

 

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