Planning Commission Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 2004

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

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce Town Planner

OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick O’Brien Lynn Campeau Serge Campeau Bev Jacobson Oda Hubbard Mike Burke Meg Canfield Lili Ruane Dan Cox Bob Rushford Chuck Bigalow Margery Sharp AGENDA 1 Call to Order and Approval of Minutes 12204 2 Public Hearing ReAdoption of Town Comprehensive Plan 3 PRD Final Plan Review Continuance Forest Park Realty Corporation Thompson RoadIrish Hill Road SUB0107 4 Communication re Crescent Ridge 5 Other Business Correspondence 6 Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Rick Peterson Chairperson called the meeting to order at 736 pm Minutes JANUARY 22 2004 MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Kay Kraushaar to approve the 12204 minutes as written VOTING unanimous 60 motion carried

2. PUBLIC HEARING READOPTION OF TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing at 738 pm and explained the update of the Town Plan is in process but to avoid having the current plan expire leaving the town without a plan readoption of the current plan is being done as a temporary measure There were no other comments The public hearing was closed MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Claude LaPierre to submit the “Town of Shelburne Comprehensive Plan both volumes of which were discussed at a public hearing on 21204 to the Shelburne Selectboard for consideration hearing and action under Section 4385 of Title 24 Vermont Statutes Annotated VOTING unanimous 60 motion carried

3. PRD FINAL PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE FOREST PARK REALTY CORP THOMPSON ROADIRISH HILL ROAD SUB0107 Patrick O’Brien and Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS and PUBLIC INPUT Patrick O’Brien reviewed site features 66 acres and the planned residential development to include 41 multifamily units on lot 1 27 single family building lots and open space lot C between the single family lots and the adjacent properties lot B where the storm water retention and treatment area will be lot A where the storm water infrastructure will be lot D which is land to be deeded to the town as open space The homeowners association will have use and maintenance of the open space on lots A and B storm water system but the town will have access easements to ensure proper maintenance of the storm water system is occurring There will be a 30’ recreationutility easement on the open space on Lot C The homeowners association documentation will reference the open space There will be no commercial or industrial activities allowed on the open space Motorized vehicles or buildings will not be allowed as well Rick Peterson asked about a path connection with Gardenside Mr O’Brien mentioned having a “floating easement ie location to be determined to provide flexibility to the town on the path location when construction of the path is to occur Chairman Peterson suggested having an alternative location to consider Mr Peterson also asked about the quality of land that abuts Gardenside being given to the town Mr O’Brien explained the land is dry not wetlands but there is a ravine The Paths Committee wanted a path to the eastern most side of Gardenside Chris Neme asked about the inclusion of backyards of the building envelopes as open space Dean Pierce noted there is not a strict definition of “open space in the bylaws Patrick O’Brien stated the inclusion of backyard space has been done with other projects The Planning Commission noted this item needs to be addressed when updating town regulations Patrick O’Brien reviewed the draft open space agreements which have been submitted to the town According to the warranty deed on the 235 acres to be given to the town there shall be no motorized vehicles clear cutting playing fields without written consent commercial activity or building dumping or outdoor lighting Mr O’Brien reviewed the reports from Scott Moreau forester and Sue Morse wildlife consultant regarding the management of the forest and wildlife areas In Zone 1 there shall be no improved trails or motorized vehicles the Buckthorn and other nonnative invasive plants need to be eradicated a 75’ uncut buffer should be maintained and there needs to be sensitivity to nesting areas and nesting time periods There was discussion of the town enforcing the management plans for the open space and keeping people out of Zone 1 Mr O’Brien pointed out there are many areas in town where people are allowed or not allowed to walk their dogs Zone 1 should not have trails in order to preserve the wildlife and forest in the area Chairman Peterson clarified the town was seeking guidance on how to best manage the land should the town do this task not a mandate for the maintenance of the land which could require the expenditure of town funds Hilda White commented the Conservation Committee wants the land given to the town restricted from building ball fields and bike paths and this may be why the documents were developed Thought needs to be given to whether the town wants open space that is encumbered with covenants against improvements on the land Patrick O’Brien noted the restriction on ball fields and lights is for the benefit of future homeowners in the development to not have lights and public pathways through their backyards Mr O’Brien suggested the Planning Commission use the reports from the consultants as guides for the land Reg Gignoux asked if the town could do nothing with the land Mr O’Brien stated this would be the town’s discretion If the town should not accept the open land then the homeowners association will own the land and be responsible for adhering to the guidelines There was further discussion of the open space and rewording the deed for the land to be given to the town to allow amendment of the management plans and bringing in other consultants if desired In response to a question about tree cutting by homeowners in the development Mr O’Brien stated the homeowners association documents will address tree cutting Injunctions and attorney fees can be sought to rectify infractions Citizens can bring action against the town if infractions are occurring on town owned land Bev Jacobson resident recalled the density bonus awarded to the developer was provided contingent upon the land being given to the town and remaining open in perpetuity Rick Peterson stated the Selectboard has accepted the land conditioned on final approval of the project by the Planning Commission Hilda White pointed out there are deed restrictions on the land against any activities Rick Peterson noted the fenced area needs to be delineated in the record Patrick O’Brien agreed the old barbed wire fence on the edge of the meadow will be labeled Mr Peterson also suggested the second paragraph below 8 in the consultant’s report regarding use of the premises be deleted the term “premises be defined and the document emphasize the land is for public accessuse Language allowing motorized vehicles for emergency andor performance of obligations ie maintenance of the property needs to be added Also the last five or six words in 5 should be deleted Patrick O’Brien reviewed the plan for Zone 4 forest and Zone 5 meadow The aspen tree growth in Zone 4 should be regenerated by doing strip cuts every 10 years and forage grasses and native trees should be replanted to createmaintain the wildlife corridor The homeowners association is responsible for zones 45 after the initial plantings done by the developer Zone 3 contains the stream and wetlands The plan advises leaving this area as is except for some strip cuts to enhance woodcock habitat and eradicating nonnative vegetation In Zone 2 the large mast trees Oak Beech should be left alone There will be some clearing of trees and vegetation for the development road and houses but the area will be marked by the forester Dead and diseased trees will be removed The large pine trees and sycamore tree will be preserved Chuck Bigalow resident asked for assurance the homeowners association will function Mr O’Brien stated buyers will be educated to the membership and governing requirements of the association prior to purchase The association board of directors will eventually have homeowners as members after the first 25 units are sold Chris Neme asked if association fees will cover all the obligations of future management of the common land Mr O’Brien said there is a budget and designated escrow accounts There will be a master association to handle two levels of maintenance houses and common land and a condominium association to handle the grounds driveway and buildings for the condominiums There was a question about what will compel the homeowners association to remain as an association and what recourse there is if there are violations of covenants Attorney Bob Rushford stated if a homeowner wants to sell their property or refinance there must be compliance with all permit conditions Each lot owner has the right to enforce the covenants either through the homeowners association or individually A complaint about violation of permit conditions could be filed with the town The town would investigate and if appropriate send a notice of violation Dean Pierce suggested the Planning Commission state a condition of approval prohibiting amendment of the management plans Mr Rushford suggested a provision saying no amendment to a specific covenant without Planning Commission approval Dan Cox resident asked if the number of vehicles allowed at each unit is specified in the covenants Patrick O’Brien stated the condominium association documents say the garages must be used as garages for vehicles and not as storage sheds or living space but there is not a limit on the number of vehicles There is a clause about unregistered uninspected vehicles Each condominium two and three bedroom townhouses will have a one or twocar garage with room in front for parking There is also a parking area indicated on the plan The development will have curbing along the streets Mr O’Brien mentioned the fence to protect landowners across Sycamore Street and proposed a six foot high stockade scalloped topped cedar fence in eight foot sections with open areas and plantings Kay Kraushaar asked about lighting Patrick O’Brien stated the full cut off downcast lights have a recessed bulb The lights look like a lantern and will be on photocells on from dusk to dawn Cut sheets will be submitted to the town There are nine street lights in the development at intersections and dispersed throughout the single family lots and none by the multifamily units Reg Gignoux noted the Planning Commission encourages using the least amount of wattage and illuminating only to meet safety needs Bev Jacobson resident questioned why the lights in the development must be on all night long especially in a rural area without lights Dean Pierce pointed out the zoning regulations allow limited lighting The subdivision regulations seek input from the town police and fire departments as well Mike Burke engineer stated the lights are low power with no spill over The reflective illumination is one foot candle Mr O’Brien noted there will be recessed lights in the doorway of each unit Act 250 review will cover lighting and there is language in the master homeowners association documents as well Dean Pierce suggested the Planning Commission specify a condition of approval requiring downshielded lighting on buildings and street light fixtures being full cut off Mike Burke stated incandescent downshielded lighting in low watt ranges are available but not cutoff There was further discussion of lighting including lights on the condominium units in front and back of the units Rick Peterson referred to a letter from the Colemans and Beans neighbors on the southwest side of the property regarding the development Mrs Bean feels a fence would prohibit people from cutting through and possibly getting injured on her property Patrick O’Brien pointed out the terrain on that side of the property is difficult and a wetlands permit would be needed in order to install a fence Also a fence is in direct conflict to the wildlife corridor Mr O’Brien suggested the property be posted against trespass rather than a fence The same 6’ high solid cedar stockade fence could be done but the run would be 245’ Patrick O’Brien suggested that he resolve the matter with Mrs Bean Mr O’Brien addressed items in the Coleman’s letter including traffic fire protection additional children from the development entering the school system impact fees wildlife run off sidewalks public parking for use of the open land and Act 250 Patrick O’Brien referred to the comments from Paul Goodrich about a right turn slip lane on Irish Hill Road coming down the hill to the development and widening the road coming up the hill The comments were submitted 21204 at the end of the work day so the cost to implement the road improvements could not be calculated for the meeting The comments from the Town Engineer regarding the roads were previously addressed stated Mr O’Brien Dean Pierce clarified the comments from Mr Goodrich involve extending the 18 culvert town would provide the culvert for the developer to install and building a slip lane and widening the shoulder by eight feet at the same time before the first building permit is issued Patrick O’Brien pointed out the traffic report indicated widening the road Irish Hill Road will encourage speeding Mr O’Brien stated his preference to resolve the matter with Paul Goodrich during construction Kay Kraushaar recalled the Planning Commission previously discussed and decided the traffic matter and an analysis of the situation will be done after the 34th unit is built Patrick O’Brien commented if it becomes apparent during construction that improvements are necessary then they should be done at that time not waiting until the 34th unit is complete Lili Ruane resident asked about recourse to get the improvements done should area residents find the situation has become even more dangerous due to the additional traffic from the development Rick Peterson reiterated there is additional review midway through the buildout of project Chuck Bigalow resident testified that cars have been barreling down Irish Hill Road for the 20 years he has lived there Common sense should be applied to the intersection and Paul Goodrich is doing this with his suggestions for a slip turn lane and widening the road shoulder Irish Hill Road is an alternate commuter route with significant traffic and the town needs to take a hard look at the intersection and do something now not two years from now when the situation is worse stressed Mr Bigalow Chris Neme agreed if the addition of 68 homes makes the grade of the intersection of Irish Hill Road and Spear Street reduce to an unacceptable level this matter needs consideration and review Mike Burke explained the issue of delay and human nature is involved in that the longer a driver is delayed at an intersection the greater chance there is for the driver to act unsafely Level of service “C is good in Chittenden County and “E is common in urban areas Patrick O’Brien stated there was lengthy discussion of traffic and road intersections through the course of review of the project Consultants analyzed the situation and it was determined if the intersection is overbuilt and underutilized the speed of cars will increase Dan Cox resident asked about construction vehicles during buildout impacting traffic on the roads Mr Cox felt that waiting until the halfway point to review the impact on the intersection may be too late Rick Peterson explained the twostep process with step one being the developer “squaring off the intersection prior to securing the first building permit and step two being the midway review Patrick O’Brien interjected if something practical needs to be done it will be done Bev Jacobson resident respectfully urged the Planning Commission to investigate the questions being raised by the Highway Director Chuck Bigalow urged the Planning Commission to observe traffic at and through the intersection at 8 am when school is in session STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 21204 DELIBERATIONDECISION PRD Final Plan Forest Park Realty ThompsonIrish Hill Road SUB0107 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White due to time constraints to continue final review of the Forest Park Realty PRD until 32504 VOTING unanimous 60 motion carried.

4. COMMUNICATION re CRESCENT RIDGE The Planning Commission reviewed a letter dated 2604 regarding the septic system for the Swenson Land Cattle subdivision Pursuant to Section 720 of the subdivision regulations the Town Manager can approve a change to the plan but the Planning Commission must be informed

5. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Newspaper Article re Survey Results Comments from the Planning Commission on the article are requested

6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to adjourn the meeting VOTING unanimous 60 motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 1020 pm

Minutes respectfully submitted by MRiordan Recording Secretary

TOWN OF SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 26 2004

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

STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce Town Planner

OTHERS PRESENT: R Leccese Bob Burley Tom Barden David Colman Robert Reicher Michael Lawrence Ruth Bogorad Elizabeth Breice Shirley Parkhill Dorothea Hanna Carlos Blakely Bill Youngblood Michael Furlong Gary Solow Stephen Vock Dave Marshall JeanCarol Dunham Chuck Dunham Steven Phillip Carrie Phillip Arlene Krapcho Margery Sharp AGENDA 1 Call to Order and Approval of Minutes 21204 2 Design Review Three Brothers CorpKessel Duff Construction 5070 Shelburne Road DR0404 3 Design Review Town of ShelburneShelburne Baseball 5420 Shelburne Road DR0405 4 Preliminary Plan Review Continuance Wake Robin Corporation 200 Wake Robin Drive SUB0308 5 Sketch Plan Review Continuance Steven and Carrie Phillip 711 Bishop Road SUB0309 6 Sketch Plan Review Continuance Charles and JeanCarol Dunham 13 Thomas Road SUB0401 7 Final Plan Boundary Line Adjustment ReApproval Bays End LLCRinald Beatrice Precourt 555 Bay Road and 215 Maple Leaf Lane SUB0202 BLA0203 8 Final Plan Approval Amendment Continuance Kristine Engstrom 7 Harbor Road SUB922R 9 Other Business Correspondence 10 Adjournment

1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES Rick Peterson Chairperson called the meeting to order at 732 pm Approval of February 12 2004 Minutes MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to approve the 21204 minutes with the following amendments Page 3 1st paragraph – clarify that Reg Gignoux asked Mr O’Brien whether or not the town is obligated to actively manage the land according to the management plans submitted Page 4 next to last paragraph statements about streetlights – clarify that streetlights in the development are dispersed throughout the multifamily units and not in the single family housing section Page 4 bottom of page paragraph regarding the letters from the Bean and Coleman families – clarify that Patrick O’Brien pointed out the terrain on the Coleman property is difficult and should be posted against trespass Page 5 top of page paragraph regarding the fence requested by the Bean family – note that the fence is the same 6’ high cedar stockade fence to be installed in the development Page 5 bottom of page statements by Chris Neme regarding impact of 68 additional homes on the intersection – clarify that Mr Neme suggested the town may want to make the developer responsible for any cost associated with remedying the problem VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

2. DESIGN REVIEW THREE BROTHERS CORPKESSEL DUFF CONSTRUCTION 5070 SHELBURNE ROAD DR0404 Gary Solow representing Ark Veterinarian Hospital appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr Solow explained the plan to remove the window in the back of the building cover the opening and install a new doorway next to the former window location A gable roof overhang will also be installed above the door to deflect water on the roof The gable overhang will be tied back into the building no support columns and will not extend out as far as the air conditioning unit There is 41’ from the building to the hedgerow The setback is 35’ The railroad is approximately 25’ away The building faces away from Shelburne Road STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 22604 Dean Pierce asked about the air conditioning unit being different from what is shown on the site plan It was clarified the condenser is shown on the site plan PUBLIC INPUT None DELIBERATIONDECISION Design Review Remove Window Add DoorDormer 5070 Shelburne Rd DR0404 MOTION by Chris Neme SECOND by Hilda White to grant design review approval to Three Brothers CorpKessel Duff Construction for work on a building at 5070 Shelburne Road consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the following condition 1 construction of the gable overhang above the new door which will be the subject of a future building permit application is approved provided the applicant can demonstrate the proposed overhang complies with the setback requirements of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

3. DESIGN REVIEW TOWN OF SHELBURNESHELBURNE BASEBALL 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD DR0405 No one appeared on behalf of the application Review of the application was postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting

4. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE WAKE ROBIN CORPORATION 200 WAKE ROBIN DRIVE SUB0308 Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Steve Vock with Civil Engineering Associates reviewed the utilities on the site There will be a water feed from the large water tank on the hill The loop system goes by the health center and down the main road The buildings will tap into the water line The line will also provide the water for the sprinkler system in the cottages There is adequate pressure and capacity Regarding sewer there is a collection line that runs to the north end of the project to a pump station then onto an existing pump station with the original infrastructure Eventually the flow goes to the town treatment plant 2 Individual services will tie into the collection line There is adequate capacity and allocation Regarding drainage there will be two detention basins and split flow to the existing and new basins All water quality requirements for discharge will be met Mr Vock addressed roads paths and lot coverage According to the Shelburne Fire Chief if all the buildings are sprinklered a second access to the site is not necessary ie access from Ridgefield is acceptable Roadways and pathways have no greater than a five percent grade The total lot coverage is practically unchanged from the previous plan minuscule change in percentage STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 22604 It was noted the Zoning Board granted conditional use approval of the project with the standard document filing requirements Rick Peterson asked about lighting and screening Steve Vock noted there are no alterations from the previous proposal Regarding lighting a comparison of the illumination in the Shelburne municipal center parking lot versus Wake Robin was done to help visual the lighting proposed for the addition at Wake Robin footcandles under the lights equal a maximum of 119 an average of 22 footcandles is found on the backside of the light as you extend out and down the uniformity ration at 5’ is 221 The illumination at Wake Robin will be less than the illumination present at the municipal center parking lot Also light dissipates quickly with downshielded lights In the cottage area it was not intended to have continuous lighting There are light fixtures at critical locations Reg Gignoux asked about lighting in the rear of the cottages that face west Bob Burley architect stated there will be no wall mounted light fixtures on the cottages The covered decks and porches will have lighting from the ceiling There are windows on the buildings and residents may have lights turned on inside their units Rick Peterson mentioned past discussions of replacing 100 watt bulbs with 70 watt bulbs and 70 watt bulbs with 50 watt bulbs in the appropriate places Bob Burley stated the driveway lights for the cottages will be reduced to 50 watt metal halide lighting from 70 watt bulbs Steve Vock noted for safety purposes consistent lighting is needed in the parking lot and on the pathways Rick Peterson asked about the lighting of the walkway to the elevator not being done until the elevator is constructed Mr Vock pointed out the walkway provides pedestrian access within the residential component of the development Bob Burley stated for safety purposes it is preferred to have lights along the sidewalk because there are no cottages on the east side of the drive There will be full cutoff lights on 12’ high darkcolored light poles Regina Lecesse with Burley Partnership pointed out the elevator not being in place reinforces the reason for the sidewalk as the only way to walk up the hill and a lighted way is necessary for safety Following further discussion the applicant agreed to try to reduce wattages wherever possible There was mention of putting timers on the lights The applicant noted the Act 250 review board will make a determination with regard to the lights as occurred with the phase one development Chris Neme asked about screening on the far northern edge of the development including 50 trees to be planted Michael Lawrence landscape architect stated not much plant material will be added in the front area There will be some clearing in the area of the detention pond Seedling trees will be planted on the edge The existing trees will be the background landscaping Steve Vock described the detention pond wet pond vegetated structure There was discussion of the need for an easement to the town in order for maintenance of the pond should Wake Robin fail to do so Steve Vock pointed out with private property the town usually does not get involved There was discussion of traffic impact by the development on the Route 7Bostwick Road intersection there will be no impact Dean Pierce requested more informationanalysis of the traffic in the area Steve Vock pointed out if there is a problem at the intersection it is an enforcement issue Wake Robin is not a generator of traffic at peak hours Rick Peterson asked about the potential for an easement for a future town recreation pathway running eastwest along Bostwick Road Bill Youngblood explained there is a change in elevation by the bridge which causes problems for a pathway Also the new bridge is wider to allow pedestrian traffic on one side but the extra width is on the north side of the bridge Mike Furlong attorney for Wake Robin stated there is concern about an easement from a liability point of view Wake Robin’s insurance carrier classifies Wake Robin as a health care facility and the insurance company has indicated insurance coverage could possibly be discontinued if there is an easement granted for a public pathway It would likely be easier to severe the land though this would require some work Rick Peterson noted the Paths Committee has not pushed for a pathway easement Effort has been focused on a path on the north side of the road Also the grade change by the bridge is significant making it difficult and potentially not possible to meet ADA requirements for a pathway PUBLIC INPUT None DELIBERATIONDECISION Preliminary Plan 37 Cottage Unit 18 Nursing Beds 200 Wake Robin Dr SUB0308 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to approve the preliminary plan submitted by Wake Robin Corporation for an expansion involving construction of 37 cottages and creation of 18 skilled nursing beds consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions 1 project plans shall be modified to address comments of Luther Tenny of Phelps Engineering in a letter dated 123103 and details shall be presented at final review following discussion with Luther Tenny about the conversion of catch basins in areas outside of the roadway 2 a second access shall not be required to the site as buildings in the cottage area will be sprinklered 3 lighting in the cottage area of the project shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable including decrease from 70 watt metal halide lights to 50 watt metal halide lights 4 there shall be no exterior wall mounted light fixtures on the cottages VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

5. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE STEVEN AND CARRIE PHILLIP 711 BISHOP ROAD SUB0309 Steve Vock Carrie and Steve Phillip appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Carrie Phillip stated discussions were held with the Beaver Creek Homeowners Association regarding access from Beaver Creek Road but the offer to purchase a curb cut was rejected The Association wanted too much money A second offer has been made more than the cost to create an access on the Phillip’s frontage on Beaver Creek Road but to date there has not been a response from the Association Steve Vock noted regardless of the subdivision of the property the property owner is entitled to access to the property As such a Conditional Use Determination CUD from the State Water Quality Division of the Agency of Natural Resources will likely be in the works Even with access from Beaver Creek Road wetlands will have to be traversed Chris Neme asked about the town assuming ownership of Beaver Creek Road in the near future Dean Pierce stated first an offer must be made to the town and the road must be built to town standards A letter listing the requirements was sent to the Beaver Creek Homeowners Association Steve Vock noted there is a significant amount of improvement needed to the road before the town will accept it STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 22604 There was discussion of the length of the proposed driveway Rick Peterson and Chris Neme expressed concern about how long the driveway is as proposed Reg Gignoux and Hilda White were not concerned about the length of the driveway but were concerned with any impact on the wetlands Carrie Phillip provided examples of long driveways in the vicinity driveways of 2700’ and 2600’ in length and pointed out their intention to sell their existing house and build in the back of the property due to the location and privacy afforded Rick Peterson asked about having a condition that if Beaver Creek Road becomes public the driveway as proposed will be discontinued and access will be made from Beaver Creek Road Steve Vock pointed out another CUD would be required because another wetland would have to be crossed It is uncertain whether the ANR would issue another CUD for the development There was further discussion of the driveway impact on wetlands and the potential location of the house building envelopes PUBLIC INPUT Arlene Krapcho Beaver Creek Road asked about the maximum number of lots that could be created on the Phillip’s lot Rick Peterson stated the zoning is five acres per unit The existing house sits on 15 acres and the Phillips are proposing to create an eight acre lot with the subdivision DELIBERATIONDECISION Sketch Plan Subdivision 711 Bishop Road Steve Carrie Phillip SUB0309 MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to go into deliberative session VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried The Planning Commission entered deliberative session at 925 pm MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Chris Neme to adjourn deliberative session and reconvene the regular meeting VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried Deliberative session was adjourned and the regular meeting reconvened at 10 pm MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to classify the Phillip application for 711 Bishop Road as a major subdivision VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Reg Gignoux to approve the sketch plan proposal submitted by Steven and Carrie Phillip subject to the following conditions 1 plans shall be revised to show an access drive designed with input from the Shelburne Fire Chief eg adequate widthcrosssection pull offs 2 the locations of three alternative building envelopes on lot 2 including one on the westerly side of the ravine and easterly of Beaver Creek Road shall be depicted and information provided on the environmental impact of each VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

6. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE CHARLES AND JEANCAROL DUNHAM 13 THOMAS ROAD SUB0401 Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr Marshall reported there have been discussions with neighbors regarding the proposal Dr Krag requested that there be more open space ie moving the lot lines farther to the west Building envelopes have been identified There are two areas on the north and south side of the lot which address the concerns of the Natural Resources Committee and avoid the flood plain STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 22604 Dean Pierce noted the Natural Resources Committee concerns related to the building envelope on Lot 3 The suggestion was to locate the building envelope at a lower elevation Concerns included run off impacts as well as impacts on the view and wildlife corridors The Natural Resources Committee also mentioned a potential easement to the LaPlatte River being located on the Dunham or Krag property In addition it was suggested the proposal be reviewed as a PRD Planned Residential Development and the lots be oriented to keep the building envelopes are far from the river as possible There was further discussion of the suggestions concerns and potential options Chris Neme suggested clustering the three houses within the acreage and adding easements on the remaining land to prohibit development in the future Dave Marshall stated clustering has been considered but help would be needed in order for this to happen ie changing the application to a PRD Charles Dunham noted he has had conversation with Dr Krag neighbor regarding purchase of lot 1 There was discussion of designing two units on the upper plateau PUBLIC INPUT None DELIBERATIONDECISION Sketch Plan Subdivision 13 Thomas Road Charles JeanCarol Dunham SUB0401 MOTION by Hilda White SECOND by Chris Neme to continue the application review until March 11 2004 VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

7. FINAL PLAN BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT REAPPROVAL BAYS END LLCRINALD AND BEATRICE PRECOURT 555 BAY ROAD AND 215 MAPLE LEAF LANE SUB0202 BLA0203 Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr Precourt recounted the problems he faced when trying to file the documentation as stated in the conditions of approval eg the town clerk would not allow the documents to be filed without a mylar being filed but the conditions of approval state the documents must be filed prior to filing a mylar The Planning Commission agreed to change the conditions to read “before the first building permit is issued or “a Certificate of Occupancy is issued STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 22604 There were no further comments PUBLIC INPUT None DELIBERATIONDECISION Final Plan Boundary Line Adjustment ReApproval Subdivision and Property Transfers 555 Bay Road and 215 Maple Leaf Lane Precourt SUB0202 BLA0203 MOTION by Chris Neme SECOND by Reg Gignoux to reapprove the final plan for a project south of Bay Road involving the transfer of 69 acres to property of Rinald and Beatrice Precourt the transfer of 14 acres from property of Margaret Perrigo and subdivision of the resulting 1167 acre parcel into five residential lots subject to the same conditions identified when the project was originally approved on August 14 2003 with the changes as follows 1 in conditions 1 and 2 replace the phrase “prior to filing a mylar with “before the first building permit is issued 2 in condition 7 replace the words “building permits with “Certificates of Occupancy VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

8. FINAL PLAN APPROVAL AMENDMENT CONTINUANCE KRISTINE ENGSTROM 7 HARBOR ROAD SUB922R No one appeared on behalf of the application MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Hilda White to continue review of the application until March 11 2004 VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried

9. OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE Work Session on Town Plan Thursday March 4 2004 starting at 7 pm to discuss transportation and economic development issues Thanks to Chris Neme The Planning Commission expressed appreciation to Chris Neme for his service on the Planning Commission Mr Neme is pursuing a position on the Selectboard

10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Reg Gignoux SECOND by Chris Neme to adjourn the meeting VOTING unanimous 40 motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 1045 pm

Minutes respectfully submitted by MRiordan Recording Secretary