MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tom Koerner, Chairperson; Milton Edelman, Steve Waltien, Boris Funtow, Gwen Webster.

ADMINISTRATION:           Cindy Tyminski, Acting Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Kenneth Albert, Gail Albert, Thomas Little, Robert Lake, Doug Moses, Christopher Senesac, Bruce Beeken, Oda Hubbard, John Thabault, Judith Raven, Matt Dawson, Dan Hussan, Adam Brown, Connie Houston, David Webster, Marilyn Hagley, George Faris, Gregg Beldock, Paul Bohne, Susan Davis (Shelburne News), and others.

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained the public hearing process.  Deliberative session to consider applications may be held at the end of the public session.

 

The applicant had not been able to prepare a site plan as requested by the board at the last hearing.

 

Kenneth Albert, owner, and Tom Little, attorney, appeared on behalf of the application. Steve Waltien recused himself.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the appeal involving definition of accessory uses to farming as noted in the Staff Report.  The Board required further details regarding specific accessory uses that the applicant was requesting.

 

Kenneth Albert reviewed the Appellant’s Memorandum on Accessory Uses to the Zoning Board, dated 04/04/05, that addressed concerns expressed at the 03/07/05 Zoning Board meeting.  The applicant listed five items for accessory use that included farm tours, wine tasting, related wine sales and food, seasonal events relative to growing grapes, and harvesting of grapes.  All activities are basically farm operations, stated Mr. Albert. Mr. Koerner asked if weddings were still included on the list of seasonal events, commenting that the new list did not look any more detailed than the previous list. The Board wanted a detailed list of activities.  Mr. Albert stated there would be no weddings or music events at the winery.  Indoor meetings would be related to the wine business.  For a winery to survive tours must offered, stressed Mr. Albert.  Other proposed events include grape stomps and harvest festivals.

 

In response to a question about Shelburne Farms, Ms. Tyminski explained that Shelburne Farms does not appear before the Zoning Board regarding on-site activities.  Shelburne Museum appears before the Selectboard for concerts and other activities on the museum grounds.  Mr. Albert clarified that the Museum appears before the Selectboard to coordinate with the police department regarding traffic issues.  The winery is not proposing events of that scale and does not anticipate the need for police to control traffic.  The harvest fest will have people picking grapes, processing grapes, and learning what a winery does.

 

Regarding parking, Ms. Tyminski noted there are no site plans for parking.  Farming is a permitted use.  The hearing is for an appeal of the Zoning Coordinator’s decision only.

 

Mr. Funtow stated that the zoning regulations do not say anything regarding retail use for an agricultural business unless is it is a roadside stand selling farm products.  Selling accessory items not related to farming is not permitted in the district.  Mr. Albert emphasized in order for the operation to succeed, the public must come. Accessory sales will not be the major sales.  Any winery offers glasses, hats with logo, corkscrews.  Napa Valley and the Finger Lakes region in New York have these types of items for sale. The area would still have bucolic agricultural scenery.  Ms. Webster noted sheep farms sell processed wool, needles, patterns, and such.  Mr. Funtow inquired as to how the types of sales proposed can be permitted or conditioned under the bylaws.  Mr. Albert reiterated that to maintain some semblance of agriculture in Shelburne the sales need to be included.  Agri-business is changing. It is no longer possible to start an agri-business and sell products at commodity prices.  Mr. Albert said he is trying to have a vertically integrated farming.

 

Tom Little, attorney, pointed out State statutes do not say much about agricultural practices in towns. If acceptable agricultural practices are being employed, the state leaves it up to towns to look at issues, such as setbacks, brown water, and such. The State Department of Agriculture defines what is done with the land, but has not looked at what else is going on at Vermont farms to survive, like school tours, tourism. 

 

What is accessory to farming relates directly to what is incidental and subordinate, and covers the five accessory uses listed.  If any of the five activities cross the line then the Town can step in.  Wine related sales of incidental items are a minor part of the operation.  The dominant activity is the growing, harvesting, making and selling of wine, which conforms to acceptable agricultural practices.  The list of five items is short and to the point versus a long list of things that could be done.

 

Mr. Albert showed a colored drawing of the proposed 100’ x 40’ barn-like structure to be located on the northern third of the property.  The proposed entrance drive on route 7 is across from the former farm stand.  The winery has 1,300’ of road frontage.

 

Mr. Waltien, neighbor to the proposed winery, stated Mr. Albert addressed the issues of the lights at night and noise from music festivals.  The neighbors are supportive of the project.

 

Marge Sharp asked if sight distance that may be impeded by a dip in Route 7 at the entrance has been addressed.  Mr. Albert stated there is 1,200’ sight distance to the south along Route 7.  An expert will be hired to examine the issue, and the entrance can be moved.

 

Bruce Beeken pointed out Shelburne Orchard is a parallel use  A winery will serve as an overall agricultural position in town, more than turning soil into grapes, but a benefit to the town.

 

Christopher Senesac, 486 Bostwick Road, expressed concern the revised list of uses will expand the definition of agricultural accessory uses with regard to products. Mr. Senesac noted his uncle ran a dairy farm that processed milk off site.  There are questions of traffic, noise, and the potential of setting a precedent for future “farm” uses.  The Town has rules and regulations in place.  Ms. Webster asked Mr. Senesac if he had a problem with the Shelburne Orchard operation.  Mr. Senesac replied that Shelburne Orchard is an existing operation while the applicant is presenting a new request.  The applicant is taking the guidelines and stretching them for something that may or may not qualify as agriculture. 

 

It was mentioned the uses were stated as “incidental and subordinate” to primary agricultural use – farming, and as long as the applicant stays within the parameters there will not be a precedent set.  Mr. Funtow noted corkscrews and glasses are not farm products.  Mr. Albert pointed out there is not a definition of “accessory uses to agriculture”.  Attorney Little stated agri-tourism is what is emerging in Vermont, and this includes on-site sales of farm products; sales are accessory.

 

Mr. Koerner said the Zoning Board would deliberate at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Waltien returned to the ZBA.

 

(Following deliberative session)

 

VOTE: (1-3); motion was denied. 

Robert Lake, owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the staff report, dated 04/04/05.  Ms. Tyminski confirmed the application for the addition of a dormer to support storage over an existing garage. A previous application (CU99-19) revealed that 20 cubic feet remained for future expansion.

 

Mr. Lake explained the application for a dormer for additional storage space in an existing 24’ x 24’ garage with a 12/12 roof pitch (the roof pitch did not allow for much storage upstairs).  There is an inside pull-down staircase to access the space. 

 

Mr. Koerner asked if the attic space over the garage contributed to the overall volume calculations since the space was not living space and should not be included in the volume. Mr. Waltien asked if the change would add 1,280 cubic feet to the calculations.  Mr. Lake confirmed this calculation.  Ms. Tyminski pointed out that only 20 cubic feet remains.

 

Mr. Lake explained that in a conversation with Brian Bigelow last year, Mr. Bigelow did not feel that garage space was part of the construction calculation.  The construction did not occur when planned so the application for the dormer was withdrawn, stated Mr. Lake. Mr. Funtow asked about Findings of Fact from the garage application, noting that if the garage was included in the initial calculation, then the dormer volume would have to be added.  The applicant stated the garage was not included per town bylaws. There is no connection to the main house. The garage roof is connected, but there is not a passageway.  There was further discussion of the garage calculations.  Mr. Koerner suggested staff do further research and include an opinion from the Town Attorney.  Ms Tyminski noted that there was a potential discrepancy since the garage volume was used when calculating the final resulting volume.

 

None.

 

 

George Faris, attorney, and Gregg Beldock, Fieldhouse, LLC, appeared on behalf of the application.  Paul Bohne, Shelburne Town Manager, appeared on behalf of the Town of Shelburne.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the staff report, dated 04/04/05.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS 

Attorney Faris noted that the east side yard setback and aesthetics were the main issues.  The application is for the modification of an existing industrial building, encroachment of the side (east) yard setback, and the need for conditional use approval.  There are two additions to the existing face of the building, and neither addition will encroach further to the property lines. 

 

In order to cover the two proposed indoor fields, four I-beam posts will extend two feet away from the building.  There are six existing concrete buttresses that come out 30” as shown on site plan drawings. Mr. Funtow observed the distance from the I-beam posts to the lot line appears to be 20.97’ as indicated on the drawing.  Attorney Faris said the I-beam will be part of the structure.  The support system will rise up 13 feet (above the existing roof) and rest upon the four steel I-beams.  The I-beams will hold up the roof and are flush against the exterior wall.

 

Mr. Beldock explained the steel structure will hold up the roof like a suspension bridge.  He explained that a couple of years ago when they started looking at all the alternatives it became obvious from the very beginning that only a suspension system would allow them to remove the interior supports.  The only other option was to build an air building.

 

Mr. Waltien questioned that if that was the case and that Mr. Beldock had known about the steel support structure from the beginning, why was it that the Board is just hearing about this on April 4^th, 2005.  Mr. Beldock stated that he believed it was not the first time he had presented the steel structure to the Town.

 

Mr. Waltien further commented that the applicant was before the Zoning Board in December (2004) for this same project and this was the first time he had ever heard of it.  Mr. Beldock explained that getting a structural drawing was an expensive process.  Mr. Beldock said that he was asked during the December 20, 2004 meeting if the Building would look the same as it did now and he said that his answer was, “Yes”.  Mr. Waltien pointed out that it did not look the same.

 

Mr. Beldock commented that the west side of the structure will look the same since the steel I-beams will be on the interior portion of the building.  Mr. Waltien asked how the building would look the same with a 13’ high steel structure on top.

 

Mr. Beldock contended that he did misspeak at the previous Zoning Board meeting because the I-beams would be actually external to the building on the west elevation.  Mr. Waltien asserted that the Town had been looking at this project since June or July (2004) and now we are being told almost a year ago that your knew what you were doing with the steel super-structure, and now we are hearing about it in April (2005).

 

Attorney Faris stated they may have had an idea about a year ago about the steel super-structure but the drawings did not come to the applicant until February, 2005. Contrary to this statement, the Zoning Coordinator had received copies of the steel structural plans submitted by the applicant that are dated January 4, 2005.

 

Mr. Beldock said that the early in the process there were some drawings that were circulated around town and to the audience at the Planning Commission meeting.

 

Mr. Beldock contended that elevations were not requested at the December 20, 2004 meeting and he believed it was only relevant to the design review portion. Mr. Waltien said that what a building is going to look like is relevant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  He explained that the impact on the neighborhood and the community and is part of the Zoning Board’s decision making process.  He stated that this change, continued Mr. Waltien, is one that had never been presented and is significant. 

 

Ms. Webster produced a copy of the conditional use submittal material and she showed how building elevations (three copies) were required but they were not submitted in the December application.  This was noted in the December 2004 staff report.

 

Ms. Tyminski pointed out a discrepancy in the height of the proposed steel beams as noted in the staff report. The total height is 37’, not 27’.  Mr. Beldock clarified that the roof is 27’ high and he believed that the steel beams are another 10’.  Mr. Faris stated that this is below the 45’ that is allowable in this district. The I-beams are 24” wide.

 

Regarding aesthetic impacts, Mr. Faris suggested the street trees and signs block all views to the building along Harbor Road and Turtle Lane.  The affordable housing units will block the view. The Planning Commission required 10-12 foot pine trees be planted for screening. There is a heavily vegetated area and existing houses that also block the view.  The Bank, the Veterinary building, and the Creamery mainly block the view from Route 7.  The baseball backstops will also block the view. 

 

The industrial building will blend into the background.  To the tear the building down and rebuild it at 45’ would be more intrusive that what is there now.  Mr. Faris showed a series of color photographs of current views along Harbor Road from Turtle Lane.

 

Mr. Faris reviewed the conditional use criteria.  Mr. Bohne stated the project will not have an impact on town facilities.  The building should not change the character of the area. The project is in the Industrial/Commerce district, said Mr. Bohne.

 

In addition to the Conditional Use approval that was currently being asked for, Ms. Webster noted that the website for Fieldhouse states that there will be a café and a daycare center.  Ms. Webster stated that childcare triggers a lot of different issues for review including safe access and parking.  Mr. Faris clarified that there would be no day care and it was only childcare for people using the premises.  There will be no third party kids.  Mr. Edelman asked about physical therapy.  Mr. Faris stated that it is an auxiliary use and people from site would only be using the therapy.  Ms. Webster stated that the other problem is a “café”.  Mr. Faris said that there is currently a café at the Athletic Club.  Mr. Faris further stated that he was addressing this issues with Ms. Tyminski (the Zoning Coordinator) and he hoped to have an answer to her letter soon.  Mr. Faris stated that we are not here tonight to approve or disapprove any uses.

 

Ms. Webster noted trees lose their leaves for six months of the year.  Mr. Beldock stated that coniferous trees will be planted on the west edge of the fields. Mr. Bohne said he would look at street tree plantings to enhance the road canopy.  Mr. Waltien asked Mr. Beldock what size trees he would be planting to actually screen this project.  Mr. Beldock referred him to the planting plan.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if the Town granted an easement to the developer.  Mr. Beldock said that if the State granted an easement on the east side no conditional use approval would be necessary. Mr. Beldock stated that the easement (on the railroad property) does not meet Steve Stitzel’s (Town Attorney) approval.

 

 

Mr. Edelman explained he was asking about the easement on the western side of the property.  Mr. Faris explained that this easement will be released when the playing fields (lot #1) are sold to the town.  The deeds with this easement will allow for shared parking and joint use in the area that is west of the Fieldhouse property boundary. Mr. Edelman asked when he anticipated that the deed would be transferred to the town.  Mr. Faris stated that the transfer of land to the town will occur when Fieldhouse receives all their permits.

 

Matt Dawson, Fieldhouse, LLC partner, commented that a dilapidated industrial building exists now and we have lost site of what is going on here. The view will not change with a new structure on the roof.  Shelburne would likely prefer children playing on recreation fields rather than seeing a rundown industrial building, stated Mr. Dawson.  Mr. Funtow interjected that we are talking about expanding a non-complying structure and examining the character of the affected area, not discussing playing fields and children playing.

 

Lee Suskin, abutter, expressed concern about the impact to the character of the neighborhood.  He is also concerned about the view and pointed out that Mr. Faris had spoken of houses blocking the view.  Mr. Suskin stated that some people live in those houses and he was one of them. Mr. Suskin said he during  the early meetings with the developer of which he attended, there was no indication 12’ steel beams would be used on top.  Mr. Suskin asked if there is any way to make changes to the building. Attorney Faris stated the foreground of the building is not changing.  There will be vegetation to screen the view from residents.  The developer can paint the building/beams to blend into the background.

 

Chet Thabault, neighbor of project, asked if the applicant was in compliance with his other projects around Town.  Mr. Thabault also asked whether the applicant is a good citizen to all past and current subcontractors and asked whether they have been paid or not. Mr. Thabault also asked if the fields were seeded yet. Mr. Thabault said he finds it unbelievable the developer did not know a superstructure was needed from the start of the project and that a developer is coming back after the fact and saying the project now needs a superstructure.  He stated that he is concerned about what other projects will be coming in after the fact and saying “Oh, by the way”.

 

Mr. Beldock said as of July, 2003 it was known a superstructure was needed.  At the October 10, 2003 meeting, it was not realized conditional use approval was needed.  A 45’ high building is allowed in the district.

 

Connie Houston, Vermont House Representative, worked with Mr. Beldock, the State and the railroad to procure an easement.  It was just discovered that the language would not meet the criteria of the Town’s attorney and a conditional use approval would still be needed.  Mr. Waltien observed this was an attempt to by-pass the Town by getting something done through the State by preventing the project coming before the community here. Mr. Waltien asserted his belief that this community has a right to know what was going on and he believed Ms. Houston was working with the applicant to by-pass that.  Mrs. Houston said she was trying to help only.

 

Oda Hubbard, resident, commented trees die or do not grow well. Ms. Hubbard asked if there is a way to box in the superstructure.

 

Marilyn Hagley, resident, urged the Town to think positively about the project, noting past attempts by her husband to get soccer fields in the area.  The project offers playing fields, affordable housing, and a fitness center.  Contention around projects makes them more expensive

 

Bruce Beeken, Historic Preservation and Design Review member, referred to the Truax, Cullin, DeBrul study that outlines a ‘gateway’ into the Village along Route 7.  The Blodgett building is part of the gateway concept.  The superstructure proportion is a 33% change in height (a notable change).  There are four degrees of harmonic elements that include scale, proportion, repetition, and color.  Attorney Faris pointed out visibility is diminished with a building in the background and vegetation in the foreground.  Mr. Beeken replied the effect of the new affordable housing project on the landscape is positive to this point. Distance does not diminish aesthetic impact.

 

Attorney Faris said the developer will entertain suggestions on color.  Regarding the Quechee Lake issue of background, distances are important and minimize the effect of a structure on the landscape.  Ms. Webster noted there is only one photograph from Route 7. Ms. Webster said she can see the building clearly from her mother’s house on the other side of Route 7, and increasing the height by 12’ is a concern.  The project also abuts the historic district of the village. Mr. Waltien suggested a site visit along Route 7 and Harbor Road.  Mr. Beldock said a video was made along Route 7 and the most that could be seen was the lower portion of the building in one area.

 

Mr. Waltien asked Mr. Beldock where the steel structure plans were on December 20, 2004.  Mr. Beldock contended that when he said that the façade of the building would look the same he truly believed that.  Mr. Waltien asked if he knew on the 20^th of December whether the super-structure would need to go up.  Mr. Beldock responded that he did know that the superstructure would need to go up he did not know whether it would be visible or whether it would be a pertinent issue.

 

In response to a suggestion, Attorney Faris stated a variance is not required. Conditional use approval is requested for expansion of a non-conforming building.

 

Mr. Koerner said the Zoning Board will deliberate at the end of the public hearing portion of the meeting.

 

(Following deliberative session)

 

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. and the Zoning Board entered deliberative session.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this  2^nd day of May  for the meeting of April 4, 2005.

 

 

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                   

Gwen Webster

Steve Waltien                                                  

Boris Funtow    

Milton Edelman

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tom Koerner, Chairperson; Milton Edelman, Gwen Webster. (Steve Waltien and Boris Funtow were absent).

ADMINISTRATION:           Cindy Tyminski, Acting Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Kenneth Albert, Scott Prom, Steve Selin.

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m., and explained the deliberative process (deliberations/decisions may be held at the conclusions of the hearings). It was noted a unanimous vote by the Board is necessary for approval of an application since there are only three board members in attendance. Applicants can elect to postpone their hearing until a full board is present.  The only matter before the board today was Shelburne Vineyards.  Steve Waltien has abstained from this matter and was therefore absent.

 

Kenneth Albert, Scott Prom, owners, and Steve Selin, architect, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the request for presentation of new and material testimony. The Board must interpret farming as stated in the Shelburne Zoning Ordinances in the agricultural district.  Denial of an appeal is not a signal the Board is not in favor of the application.  The application must conform to the Town ordinances.  A precedent cannot be set.  The Board is trying to guide the application to make it work for all parties.  Ms. Tyminski clarified the Board is being asked to make a determination as to whether a public hearing should be held on May 2, 2005 to hear any new and material information relevant to their application.   The applicant was instructed that this is not an opportunity to take a second “bite of the apple”, and he must limit his presentation to the board to new information.

 

Mr. Albert introduced Scott Prom, wine maker and partner, and Mr. Selin, architect. Mr. Albert stated an outline of the limiting the extent of activities in the proposal has been submitted. Mr. Koerner noted the submitted document included limitations and details regarding accessory uses to the proposed winery, but was not substantially different than what had been seen before.  There was comment that the project must conform to current regulations and ordinances. The Selectboard can amend current ordinances. The process to amend the zoning regulations was explained (Planning Commission review followed by recommendation to the Selectboard for action). The Zoning Coordinator can assist the applicant in drafting proposed amendments, and once the amendments are approved (adopted), the applicant can return to the Zoning Board for a ruling on their application under the newly adopted regulations. Construction of the proposed structure can begin within 15 days of acquiring a building permit.

 

Mr. Selin asked what type of agricultural activities with the application could be approved under the current regulations.  Ms. Tyminski stated growing grapes; making and selling wine were permitted uses now and these were identified in her opinion letter.  She further stated that the applicant can begin construction as soon as the site has been subdivided and a building permit has been issued.

 

There was further discussion of guidance for conditional uses on items as outlined in the applicant have proposed bylaw.   There was also discussion that the timing of the project since the winery needs to be in place for processing grapes and making wine in the fall. The applicant asked for clarification that Shelburne Vineyards would be approved to grow, process, sell, and offer wine tasting as discussed.  Ms. Tyminski stated as long as wine tasting does not become a special activity, then wine “sampling” would be allowable.

 

Mr. Albert reviewed that the definition of agriculture/farming under Act 250 allows sale of up to 15% of non-farm produced products.  Ms. Tyminski pointed out that the State’s definition of farming does not include non-farm products.  The applicant is still advised to seek changes to the town regulations.  Mr. Koerner stated that solidifying accessory uses to farming as conditional uses will give the applicant broader alternatives in the future and protect the applicant from any outside complaints.

 

MOTION to approve the application for reconsideration (RE05-13). 

 

None.

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

 

Minutes transcribed from tape by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. 

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 2^nd of  May for the meeting of April 12, 2005.

 

 

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                   

Gwen Webster 

Steve Waltien                                                  

Boris Funtow    

Milton Edelman