TOWN OF SHELBURNE

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Shannon Courville.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Guilmette, Brad Gardner, Mike Burke, Laurie Stravrand, David Marshall, Linda Vail, Staige Davis, Mark Neagley, Elizabeth Thomas, Rob Donahue (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m., and explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) may conduct old business, approve minutes, sign Findings of Fact or deliberate in Deliberative Session. Mr. Koerner noted that with four board in attendance, the Zoning Board could act on an application, but a tie (2-2) vote would result in a denial.  The applicant had the option to wait for a full board in attendance. (Note: with the arrival of Ms. Webster, the number present totaled five members.)  Introductions were made.

 

2.                  OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Guilmette, Senior Facilities Engineer with the Agency of Natural Resources, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed that the Town application for a variance at the Bay Road Fishing Access area had been continued from 08/02/02.  Mr. Courville clarified that the hearing was continued until a representative could attend and answer questions. The request was for a variance from the front yard setback.

 

A colored site plan was submitted for ZBA review.  Mr. Guilmette reviewed the proposed parking area, entrance improvements, modified turn area due to Class 3 wetlands, shoreline stabilization work, deletion of a shore fishing platform, and reduction of a proposed boat ramp to a single lane ramp from a two lane ramp.  An error on the original plan was correct regarding right-of-way measurements (from the center of Bay Road rather than the edge of the road).  A proposed floating dock and a concrete shoreline pad would be constructed.  The floating dock could be moved out to deeper water as the lake level decreased and would be removed in the winter.

 

Mr. Funtow suggested that the proposed ramp be classified as a driveway.  The dock in the water would not require a variance, but the concrete slab as a “structure” would require a variance.  Mr. Courville confirmed that a concrete slab met the definition of a structure. There was discussion regarding what constituted a structure, if the ramp could be defined as a driveway (which was allowed in a front yard setback), the ramp as access to the lake, and if the proposal would meet the five variance criteria.  Mr. Guilmette noted that a hardship would be created due to the nature of the lake levels, which become a mud flat and limit use unless a ramp was put in a deeper area. The current ramp would provide “reasonable use” with expensive dredging.  If the proposal could not be made to fit the variance criteria, then the Town would ask for further support through the State of Vermont and public opinion.  Mr. Guilmette said the Wetlands agency determines that the lake/wetlands could not be filled in, and the Corps of Engineers dictates where a ramp could go.

 

In response to a question, Mr. Guilmette said that the existing ramp allowed boats to be backed into the water with a four-wheel drive vehicle, but the access was not good. 

 

Ms. Webster asked if the Town could return to the Wetlands agency for approval in another area if the application is denied.  Mr. Guilmette replied Lakes and Ponds, Wetlands, and Corps of Engineers would not approve changes even if the application was denied. It was doubtful that the Town could get a conditional use from Wetlands.  Dredging was expensive and would tend to fill back in, and there were environmental impacts.  The new ramp would be utilized as proposed during times when the lake level was too low (in July/August).

 

The ZBA reviewed the project against the five criteria for a variance.  Regarding reasonable use, the area was already in use, hardship was a self-created hardship, and the new ramp had been reduced from a double lane to a single lane.  A strict interpretation of the criteria would make it difficult for the project to go forward.

 

Mr. Guilmette reviewed that public hearings were held on the project and the Selectboard voted unanimously to appear before the ZBA for a variance.  There was strong support for the project.  If “reasonable” use of the property was not established, the Town could get more letters of support for reasonable public access. Currently, there was no safe access for the public provided. 

 

In response to a question, Mr. Guilmette said that the nearest equivalent (project) was Perkins Pier or the Converse Bay access areas. Converse Bay also gets into shallow water and requires maintenance dredging or a breakwater.

 

There was further discussion regarding alternative options available that included reducing the concrete structure to an 88 foot elevation versus 100 foot, the Corps of Engineer jurisdiction which was at the 98 footmark, lighting proposed at the parking area, using Surpac surfacing versus paving and striping as an option, storm run off review, a “reasonable” use application versus a more “profit driven” reasonable use, and if a variance was necessary if the proposed ramp could be considered a driveway (floating dock was not a factor). 

 

There were no public comments.

It was decided that a variance is not required for the applicant’s proposal.

 

Brad Gardner and Michael Burke appeared on behalf of the application.

Mr. Koerner reviewed the land location of the non-conforming lot, and the variance from front and back setbacks.

Mr. Burke, Krebs and Lansing representative, said that the lot would be prepared for a single story 2800 square foot commercial retail/service building that would be similar to existing types in area. The lot would be well landscaped and lighted. The AOT recently took a 15-foot strip of land along the front for the Route 7 project. The lot now has less front and back setbacks than required.  A residential house is located north of lot and the Lighting House is on the south side. Across the road are commercial establishments. Mr. Courville noted that a single-family residential house could be built on the lot and meet the setback requirements. There was discussion regarding residential house locations in the area, entry onto the lot from Lakeview Drive versus the current Route 7 entry, and recent variance precedent by the Buono application.  Mr. Burke said that if the footprint was scaled , then a two-story building would be designed.  Mr. Burke said that the building might be used for a possible Lighting House showroom, but there was no tenant at this time.

 

There was discussion regarding the lot coverage and re-orienting the building to fit the lot better, elevation changes of 8 feet average, a proposed parking lot that would be lower in the rear to fit the terrain, and 14 parking spaces which were required.  Mr. Koerner noted that there was a disparity of uses noted in the application and site plan; clarification was needed.  Mr. Koerner read the justification and communication sections from the submitted application.  Mr. Funtow reiterated that regarding criteria #1 and #5, a single family house could fit on the lot with a 38 percent building coverage versus the proposed 40 percent.

There was further discussion regarding lot location and other areas with a mix of residential/commercial uses along the Route 7 corridor which were acceptable to consider.  Mr. Gardner said the building was designed to blend into the terrain and transition from residential to commercial.  Of the three building designs to consider, Mr. Gardner said he was partial to the third design. Furthermore, traffic lights and curb cut consolidation were proposed in the AOT Route 7 improvement project.

 

The ZBA noted questions/concerns as follows:

Mr. Koerner read the Conditional Use notes from the application and asked if water and sewer allocation.had been granted.  Mr. Gardner replied that the intent was to hook up, but there was no written allocation at this time. The AOT traffic study indicated that there  would be a signalized unit for a dedicated turn.  All physically adjoining neighbors were notified. If the proposed building was turned, that would impact parking as well as the proposed travel corridor.  The proposal as shown on the site plan was the best use of the lot, stated Mr. Gardner.  Mr. Edelman suggested reviewing the old Copytek building for examples of a good lower level/upper level design.  Mr. Koerner cautioned that if the current site plan is approved, that is what must be built.  The design could not be changed.  Mr. Burke explained that different designs were explored, but there were issues regarding the need for a travel corridor around the building and elevation of the driveway in relation to the house on the left.  A  proposed five-foot high landscape hedge would separate the property for screening. Mr. Burke noted that all trees would be maintained on the plan.

Mr. Koerner noted that the application would go before the Planning Commission for review as well.  The application would be continued. It was recommended that a completed application include plantings for screening, retail square footage and use, and the number of parking spaces required.  Single-family use would also come under further discussion. 

 

Staff would forward a copy of Section 1600.3b to Mr. Gardner.

 

Mr. Funtow noted that since he did not live on Lakeview Drive, his name should be deleted from the Lakeview Drive map, and that he had no vested interest.

 

a) CU03-2 TOM AND JACKIE COBURN SEEK CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL UNDER THE TOWN OF SHELBURNE ZONING BYLAWS SECTION 1620.2.2 AND SECTION 1330.1.2 FOR AN ADDITION AT 240 CLEARWATER ROAD Ms. Stravrand, architect, appeared on behalf of the application.

Ms. Stravrand explained proposed changes to an existing structure that included a bay window and screened porch.  There were no setback issues, except from the lake side. A floor plan was submitted. No trees would be cut, and plantings would be added to increase privacy.  The homeowner intended to live in the house in the summer and winter in Florida.  There was discussion regarding previous additions to the original house, a 21 percent increase of coverage, and a surveyor’s measurement. Mr. Funtow said that the Zoning Administrator must be notified regarding any tree clearing.

MOTION by Ms. Webster, seconded by Mr. Waltien, to approve the Conditional Use request under Article XVI, General Regulations, Section 1620.2.2, Noncomplying Structures and Article XIII, Lake shore Overlay District, Section 1330.1.2 for additions to existing nonconforming structures with the following conditions:

1.         The site improvements shall comply with the site plan and elevations, entitled Coburn Residence Plan, dated 10/21/02, that were submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Board at the public hearing on 01/06/03.

2.         As part of the building permit application, the applicants shall submit a site plan indicating the limits of site construction. The removal of trees and shrubs for this application shall only occur within the boundary of the limits of the construction plan. Other than the trees removed for construction as indicated above, trees shall not be removed from the property unless the trees are dead, damaged, or severely diseased as determined by an arborist.

3.         Within sixty (60) days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office.  This document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions.

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

 

b) V03-04 BENCHMARK SHELBURNE SENIOR HOUSING LLC SEEKS A VARIANCE UNDER SHELBURNE BYLAW 730.1a FOR THE LOT AREA MINIMUM PER UNIT OF ELDERLY HOUSING AT 333 MORGAN DRIVE

David Marshall, Linda Vail, Staige Davis, Mark Neagley, and Elizabeth Thomas, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed staff notes and confirmed the ZBA had read the application.

Mr. Marshall explained the “Pillars” location and operation as presented on a colored site map, and reviewed a brief history of the 1976 Conditional Use permit for expansion to 38 residents and a 1977 addition to the main building. The applicant was seeking a variance for a reasonable number of units to allow a stabilized nature of the neighborhood that would create 11 units maximum, or 8.8 units versus the 5.7 resident density allowed currently.  The applicant has met with the State Historical Preservation office regarding the best use in keeping with the building. The proposal was supported by the neighbors, said Mr. Marshall.

 

Ms. Vail explained that the State Historical Preservation office agreed in principle that five units would preserve the interior historical architectural details of the main building.  The proposal is for five to six units that were two bedroom/2.5 bath, dining room, living room, and kitchen per unit in the main building.  Permission is sought for 8.8 units, but could end at 11 at the Planning Commission level.  There would be an age restriction of 50 and over proposed in the deed.  The existing garage would be removed and a new garage built to allow one garage per unit.  There was discussion regarding the age of Senior housing at 55 versus 50 years,and the proposed density of the project in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Marshall noted that the proposed density ratio to land acreage would require a variance.  Neighbors were contacted and input taken regarding landscaping, screening, amenities, and uses.  Mr. Davis said that the East Lake project was used as a model.  A market range average of $500,000 would help cover the cost of renovation, which was higher than starting new.  The project met seven out of the nine criteria, would be a less intensive use, lower traffic than currently, and would be an economically viable use.  The porch on the end would be restored from an interior room, and parking spaces would be modified to lessen impact on neighbors.  Mr. Davis reviewed a 1999 permit for bed numbers and septic system allocation.

 

Mr. Funtow questioned if the proposal required a PRD versus a variance.  Mr. Marshall said that the proposal would become a PRD at the Planning Commission level.  The applicant was noting that the Zoning Regulations did not envision this type of density in a residential area, and respective of the neighborhood, a variance was needed to increase from five to 8.8 units, which was less density than currently.

 

There was discussion regarding proposed changes that included relocating the existing driveway, screening from “Motel 6”, building a shared lake access with the neighbors, and cutting minimal trees and landscape screening along the Thomas property.

Mr. Koerner read variance justifications and explained the five criteria for a variance and conditional use.   There was discussion regarding age definition in the Town regulations, economic possibilities for targeting age 50 versus 55 which would not effect the project, and impacts to Town services.  There was further discussion regarding density, which would allow a more innovative design versus a “cookie cutter” design.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if there were a ‘no build’ zone in the deed.  Mr. Marshall replied that a 1947 deed mentioned a no build zone, but the details were unknown.

Mr. Keve, neighbor, said that his view of the property was unpleasant and he had attempted to negotiate screening/plantings with the former owner.  Mr. Keve spoke in favor of the proposal and working in a cooperative way to accommodate lake access, improve views and the impact on his property.

 

Ms. Thomas, neighbor, said that a single family home would be great. Ms. Thomas was supportive of local people doing the project versus unknown entities, but had concerns regarding noise.

 

Mr. Waltien noted that Morgan Drive was an easement over the Thomas property.  Ms. Thomas said the Pillars had an agreement with the other neighbors to maintain Morgan Drive.  Access to the Thomas property was from Harbor Road.

 

Mr. Funtow said that review of density use was outside the ZBA purview.  A PRD was handled at the Planning Commission level.  Also, the ZBA does not consider economic uses.  The applicant would need a strong argument for eight units versus five units to satisfy the criteria.  There was further discussion regarding the $1.95 million purchase price for the property, State of Vermont variance criteria related to use and density and key issues, the current use for 38 residents and 15 staff versus 5 units which was not economically feasible for the proposal, and if the building could be razed or not.  Mr. Neagley noted that the property was subject to Act 250 review due to the previous use for 38 residents  Ms. Vail said that the State Historic Division would not allow the building to be torn down.

Mr. Koerner said that the ZBA would deliberate in closed session.  The Zoning Administrator would have a decision on 01/07/03.

 

VOTE:  Denied (5-0); motion failed.

 

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 3rd day of February, 2003 for the meeting of January 6, 2003.

                               

Tom Koerner, Chairman

Boris Funtow

Milton Edelman

Steve Waltien

Gwen Webster