TOWN OF SHELBURNE

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tom Koerner, Chairman; Boris Funtow, Steve Waltien, Milton Edelman.

MEMBERS ABSENT:         Gwen Webster.

STAFF PRESENT:                Shannon Courville.

OTHERS PRESENT:            J. Duane, Patrick Grangien, Matt Fisher, Marcel Beaudin, Robin Jeffers, Jan Forgays, Bill Rockford, Rob Donahue, Shelburne News.

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted that the Paul Boisvert application had been withdrawn.  Mr. Koerner explained that approval of minutes, Findings of Fact, and Deliberations were sometimes conducted at the end of the meeting.  With only four members of the Board present, a majority vote of at least three ayes would be necessary to carry a motion, and a tie vote would result in denial.  A decision on an application could be postponed until the full Board is present if requested by the applicant

 

CU02-11 MARCEL BEAUDIN seeks conditional use approval under Shelburne Zoning Bylaw 1620.2 2 to modify a noncomplying structure at 805 Bay Road Mr. Beaudin, property owner, appeared on behalf of the application. 

 

Mr. Beaudin reviewed that a conditional use for a single lot approved two years ago has expired.  The current application is to combine the two lots, which meet all town requirements regarding setbacks, except for the 100 foot setback in the Lakeshore Overlay District.  The water backs up on the property and the elevation was below 102 feet. The existing camp would be torn down and the house site moved away from the road.

 

Mr. Koerner pointed out that if the camp was removed and there was new construction at a new site, then the application should have been for a variance versus a conditional use.

 

There was lengthy discussion of the correct application needed, Class 3 wetlands on the Beaudin property (would not be altered), the need for a clearer definition of measurement from the shoreline, and the two lots taxed as one lot. Mr. Funtow read the zoning ordinance section on the Lakeshore Overlay which stated an original structure can not be enlarged by more than 50 percent.  The 120 foot measurement was the test.  Also, the structure was not being relocated on the same footprint, said Mr. Funtow.   Mr. Koerner said the application was a reasonable use of  the property, but may not be correct regarding the volume calculation needed versus footprint. 

 

Mr. Beaudin said he thought it would be easier to request a variance rather than a conditional use.  The application met all the requirements for a variance.  The proposed house was much larger than 50 percent of the camp.  Mr. Beaudin said he would be willing to request a variance.

 

Mr. Fisher, Shelburne resident and abutting neighbor, explained that there was a drainage issue, which was an engineering concern.  Mr. Beaudin noted that the drainage ditch was on the Fisher property and (Beaudin) was not touching the ditch at all.  The proposed house site was no where near the culvert.  Mr. Fisher asked what the elevation was.   Mr. Koerner said that staff would provide the information.

 

Mr. Beaudin said that he would withdraw the conditional use application and return next month with variance application.

 

CU-13 PATRICK GRANGIEN seeks conditional use approval under Shelburne Zoning Bylaw 1620.2 2 to enclose the porch at 5513 Shelburne Road Patrick Grangien, Café Shelburne owner, appeared on behalf of the application. 

 

Mr. Grangien explained that a pre-existing covered and screened-in porch would be modified with walls for year-round use.  Currently, the café has 35 seats on the porch and 55 seats inside.  Use would include serving private parties during the winter.  The architecture and existing size would remain the same.   The parking situation with Harrington’s, an abutting business, has been resolved.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the staff report on conditional use, evaluation and criteria.

 

Mr. Courville noted there were no comments received regarding the application.

 

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve the conditional use under Shelburne Zoning Bylaw 1620.2 2 to enclose the porch at 5513 Shelburne Road with the following conditions:

1.  The site improvements shall comply with the site plan, prepared by Patrick Grangien which was submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Board during the public hearing on June 3, 2002.

2.  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 (4-0); motion carried.

 

Robin Jeffers, property owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Ms. Forgays, Shelburne resident and abutting neighbor, asked Mr. Koerner, Zoning Board Chairman, to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest since Mr. Koerner was the original architect on the house.  Mr. Koerner explained that in the capacity of Chairperson he did not see that there was a conflict of interest.  Mr. Rockford commented that Mr. Koerner had offered to recuse himself two years ago during public hearings on an application to build the home.  Mr. Koerner recalled that it was not necessary for him to recuse himself because the neighbors reached a compromise outside of the public hearing.  Mr. Waltien said that he did not see a conflict of interest in Mr. Koerner’s role as the original architect.  Mr. Koerner said he would not recuse himself.  Mr. Koerner has lived in Shelburne 40 years and worked for Ireland, not Robin Jeffers.  Mr. Koerner said he understands Ms. Forgay’s concern, but if he did not recuse himself at the previous hearing, he did not see why he should do so now.

 

Ms. Forgays said the new structure as submitted increased the volume of a non-conforming structure by more than 50 percent and the (measurement) test was never applied.  Mr. Funtow commented that there was no mention of possible volume issues in the staff report.  Ms. Forgays said that Mr. Courville calculated the numbers and volume was an issue.  Mr. Courville said he would recalculate the original numbers versus the new numbers.

 

Mr. Courville suggested that the Zoning Board review the staff report, take testimony and issue a decision within 30 days.

 

Ms. Jeffers explained that they had received a violation notice regarding doors, windows, skylights, dormers, garage door, deck, roof changes, and porches.  A roof was not built on one of the decks.  The integrity of the plans was upheld and were not a detriment to the neighbors.  Mr. Koerner reviewed that there were five of nine potential zoning violations remaining. The volume issue was a potential zoning violation.  Ms. Jeffers said she understood it was not a violation.  The house footprint was 28’ x 28’.  The house is a 2 ½ story, 2 bedroom/2 bath room house now.  Construction started in January 2002 and was complete in April 2002.  The footprint changed by the addition of an extra deck.  Mr. Courville said that Ms. Jeffers did not have a building permit for the changes.

 

Mr. Koerner noted that conditional use allows neighbors to comment regarding impacts to their property.

 

Ms. Jeffers said they wanted to add lights to the back of the house. 

 

Mr. Koerner read the Zoning Administrator’s letter regarding the notice of violation.

 

Ms. Jeffers reviewed that drainage, foundation, sideyard setback increases, and fire safety issues related to a proposed chimney were addressed.  The chimney was not constructed due to requests from neighbors who were concerned about fire safety issues.  A gas fireplace was installed instead, said Ms. Jeffers.

 

Mr. Waltien asked for clarification regarding Ms. Jeffers’ request, which was approval of the existing violations.  Ms. Jeffers replied that was correct.

Mr. Koerner opened discussion of conditional use issues 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and whether the application would meet criteria for conditional use.  Ms. Forgays reiterated that there was more than a 50 percent increase of the footprint.  Ms. Forgays passed out copies of a written outline of concerns to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and noted that she was an attorney representing her property interests.  As built, the structure was changed in volume, design and there were problems meeting with the Zoning Administrator (Brian Bigelow).   Ms. Forgays read the list of concerns, which also included photographs of the new structure.  Because the new structure is so close to our house, it looks like an addition to our house, which it is not, stated Ms. Forgays.  Mr. Waltien noted that the submitted pictures were of poor quality and it was hard to tell what was what. 

 

Ms. Forgays said the original camp was torn down and a new structure erected.  Under Title 24, the Jeffers needed a variance, which was not applied for nor obtained. Ms. Forgays cited case law of Brassard versus Miller as well as Dewitt versus Brattleboro and read Attachments #1 and #2.  Ms. Forgays said that she supported the original plans (rendered by Mr. Koerner).  Regarding the porches, the application showed one, but the plans showed two.  The Zoning Administrator (Mr. Bigelow) said the second porch was not a functional porch, just decorative railing.  A new front door was added, but not approved.  Grading of the property was not done as permitted (Attachment #1), and there were (car) headlight, noise, and privacy issues.  The new porch looks directly into the Forgays bathroom and master bath (Attachment #4).  Side railing on a porch should have been a roof (Attachment #2).  Third floor windows are now six windows which transfer light and noise to the Forgays bedrooms.  There are now 12 windows facing the Forgays home.  There are two new doors at the rear of Jeffers house.  Four small windows were permitted and now there is a sliding door.  Zoning violations have been issued by the Zoning Administrator, stated Ms. Forgays.  Ms. Forgays said the changes to design have impacted their use of the bathrooms and bedrooms, backyard use was limited now, and there were privacy issues.  The original structure never caused any problem, but it was stressful.    Four extra lights were permitted, and now (the Jeffer’s) were asking for two more lights at two un-permitted rear doors.

 

Mr. Rockwell explained that a letter from Ms. Jeffers, dated 05/15/02, noted that we requested they replace the proposed fireplace.  We did not request a gas fireplace, and did express concern regarding safety of fire hazards, said Mr. Rockwell.   In a June 1^st conversation, Ms. Jeffers said there were budget constraints and a gas fireplace would be put in.  We did not expect to impose conditions, noted Mr. Rockwell. 

 

There was discussion of side setback distances between houses.  Ms. Jeffers said there was eight feet between properties.  Mr. Funtow reviewed the site plans and noted that the shortest distance of eight feet ran for a 48 feet distance.  A May 2002 civil engineer report states there was 9.5 feet closest to the line.  Ms. Forgays commented that the original structure was three feet from the line, therefore, the new structure was not built in the same place.  Unfortunately that can not be proven because the old house was torn down.

 

Mr. Edelman asked why (the Forgays-Rockfords) did not object to the changes while the house was under construction. Ms. Forgays said she had called the Zoning Administrator (Bigelow) when the camp was torn down and numerous times during construction, and  was told by Mr. Bigelow that he would check into it.

 

Mr. Waltien asked for clarification regarding issues that included skylights, a second floor porch, and other issues.  Ms. Jeffers answered that a second level porch was one-half of what was permitted (four foot versus eight foot).  There was no roof on the porch and that (openness) has taken away from activity.

 

Ms. Jeffers stated that the new house was not significantly different from the plans submitted.  The changes were small and beneficial. At the lowest level there would be a garage, turnaround, and car parking.

 

Mr. Funtow asked why the Jeffers did not submit the changes to the Zoning Administrator.  Ms. Jeffers replied that she did not think it was necessary.  The builder worked off the original plans, said Ms. Jeffers. Mr. Funtow asked what happened to change the plans. Ms. Forgays reiterated that if there were only one or two changes they would not be here, but there were so many.

 

Ms. Jeffers said that there was significant landscaping between the houses.  Ms. Forgays replied that there were deciduous trees which lose their leaves (in winter) and that made a difference in winter versus summer.  An old-growth cedar hedgerow may have been impacted by earthwork and that was a concern.

 

Wendy Steiger, friend of Ms. Jeffers but not a Shelburne resident, spoke in favor of Ms. Jeffers.

Robin Jeffers Amendment to Conditional Use for Changes to House at 499 Bay Road Mr. Courville suggested that the Zoning Board consult with the Town Attorney before making a decision. A decision could be forwarded within 30 days.

 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn L. Furr, Recording Secretary

 

These minutes are subject to change by the Shelburne Zoning Board of Adjustment.  Changes, if any, will be recorded in the minutes of the next meeting of the Board.

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 1^st day of July for the meeting of June 3, 2002.

 

Tom Koerner, Chairman

Boris Funtow

Milton Edelman

Steve Waltien

Gwen Webster