    |
  |
        |
|
|
Planning Commission Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson, Chairperson; Fred Schmidt, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude Lapierre. (Hilda White was absent.) ADMINISTRATION: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Little, Kevin Clayton, Scott Jannich, R. B. Klinkenberg, Larry Williams, Dennis Webster, Paul Bohne, David Webster, Wendy Smith, Rob Donahue, Bill Shearer, Robert Miller, Jeff Jackson, Andy Rowe. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Bylaws Amendment 3. Approval of Minutes (4/28/05) 4. Design Review, Wendy Smith, 175 Harbor Road (DR05-06) 5. Design Review, Clayton/Cheney (d/b/a Cucina Antica), 40 Shelburne Shopping Park (DR05-09) 6. Design Review, Harrington’s in VT, Inc., 5597 Shelburne Road (DR05-08) 7. Site Plan Review, Harrington’s in VT, Inc., 5597 Shelburne Road (SP05-01) 8. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Willard Jackson, et al & Jeffrey &4539 Harbor Road (SUB05-05) 9. Preliminary Plat, Ernest Auclair Family Trust/Michael Anderson, 51 Pond Road (SUB04-10) 10. Request to Modify Zoning Regulations (The Miller Group) 11. Other Business 12. Adjournment 1. CALL TO ORDER Rick Peterson, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. FIELDHOUSE, LLC Paul Bohne, Shelburne Town Manager, gave a report on the status of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Shelburne Athletic Club. Bohne reviewed the progress of the Fieldhouse, LLC project and mentioned an approval condition related to improvements on Harbor Road and at the Route 7 intersection signalization which will not be fully met. This condition called for retiming of the traffic lights prior to the issuance of a CO. Bohne indicated that work on this condition was delayed in part because the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) lacked adequate traffic data (VTrans will conduct a new traffic survey since the 2004 survey data was not usable) and because the closing of Bay Road makes the retiming impractical (Shelburne police will be providing peak hour traffic control during May). Bohne stated that the Town will submit an application in time to come before the Planning Commission on June 9 to request an amendment to the condition related to retiming of the traffic signal. Bohne suggested that retiming could be done in the fall. Mr. Peterson pointed out there were a number of conditions regarding the Harbor Road/Route 7 intersection, some of which are contingent upon completion of other conditions. Mr. Bohne stated the traffic lanes on Harbor Road have been restriped to narrow the roadway and pedestrian signal heads will be installed at the intersection of Harbor Road/Route 7 in late summer, 2006, shortly before the playing fields will open. As reported by Mr. Bohne, the Town has met with the parties, and a conditional Certificate of Occupancy (CO) will be issued. Ms. Kraushaar asked if the Planning Commission conditions adopted 9/9/04 (copies of which were provided to the Commission) were thoroughly reviewed as part of the process. Mr. Bohne indicated that the conditions have been reviewed. Ms. Kraushaar then read Condition #2 regarding legal documents on the conservation of open space, which must be finalized before executing a CO. Mr. Bohne noted that an easement for the open space will be executed now as part of the conditional CO. He maintained, however, that the Town needs to close on the property before all of the legal documents can be finalized. The agreement between the Town and Gregg Beldock makes the closing on the property contingent on issuance of permits. . Mr. Gignoux objected to the unfairness of asking the Planning Commission to act on the matter at the very last minute and suggested that a CO should not be issued until conditions are met. Mr. Bohne clarified his presentation was “informational” only; a decision by the Planning Commission was not expected. Mr. Gignoux pointed out all applicants are required to follow the development review and approval process, and COs should not be issued until all conditions are met. Circumventing the process undermines the Planning Commission’s role. Mr. Bohne noted conditional COs have been issued in the past. A precedent was not being set. Mr. Gignoux reiterated the request is coming in the “11th hour”, adding the Planning Commission has handled larger projects than the Bullrock project, and has not had to face the types of problems before the Commission with the application. Ms. Kraushaar questioned why the legal documents could not be submitted. Mr. Bohne explained that the terms of the agreement between the Town as co-applicant and Mr. Beldock prevent certain documents from being finalized. When all permits have been issued and the playing fields are ready, deeds will be transferred and the Town will receive all executed legal documents. Mr. Peterson expressed concern about the potential of the open space not remaining open/undeveloped if the Town does not receive the deed before the Fieldhouse is in operation. Mr. Bohne assured all the open space easement will be in hand before the conditional CO is signed. Mr. Gignoux interjected the matter is effectively settled once a conditional CO is issued. If there are outstanding issues, the matter will end up in environmental court and delayed for years. Mr. Bohne reported 132 light cedar trees have been purchased and will be in by June 1st. He knows this because the Town has received an invoice for a portion of the landscaping. Mr. Peterson stated a full briefing will be added to the June 9, 2005 Planning Commission agenda as a priority matter. David Webster, resident, requested the Planning Commission take a vote to determine each member’s position on the matter, and expressed concern the process was trampled. Mr. Peterson stated the minutes will reflect that the Planning Commission’s concern, and the emphasis that the process must be followed with compliance to conditions. Mr. Gignoux asked if the speed tables are part of the road improvements. Mr. Bohne said the tables are to be installed at the same time the signals are put in. 2. PUBLIC HEARING, PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT Mr. Peterson reviewed the proposed amendment to establish a Planned Unit Development in the Village Core Overlay District, and read a synopsis of the new provision (Chapter 117 of the state statutes). The change will allow for renovation and redevelopment of existing structures. The Village Core Overlay District area under consideration was shown on the Town Map. PUBLIC COMMENTS Larry Williams, Redstone Commercial Group, said the Redstone Group is interested in the proposed amendment and will come to the Planning Commission with a redevelopment proposal for Shelburne Inn if the amendment is adopted. Mr. Williams indicated that he believes the proposal is an appropriate response to redevelopment of the Village Core. He added, however, that the design of the motel structure could be improved if the units extend five feet farther into the rear yard setback. Mr. Williams asked if the Planning Commission would consider adding 3.d, similar to 3.f, to allow a lesser setback. David Webster, resident, spoke against reducing the setbacks. According to Mr. Webster, the Shelburne Inn motel was built in 1967 with some violations and variances that would not be allowed today. The motel units were built in violation of height limitations, and to use existing structure height as a threshold would be a “folly,” especially if consideration is given to lessening the setbacks. Decreasing the setbacks means more impacts on neighboring property. Mr. Webster also expressed concern that increased density in the village will change the village. He noted with concern the 40,000 square foot lot size and coverage allowances. Mr. Peterson stated the Planning Commission in establishing a minimum threshold of 40,000 square feet, has limited the number of existing parcels on which a Redevelopment PUD could be proposed. Fred Schmidt asked if the alleged 1967 violations were ever addressed. Larry Williams stated the title search and deed showed no notice of violations. Mr. Webster recalled that Mr. Marsett, an abutting neighbor, was very sick at the time and very upset at the situation, but most likely never objected to the 10’ setback and height violations. Bill Shearer spoke in support of the proposal and suggested the Planning Commission consider applications on case-by-case basis for flexibility. There are now requirements, such as ADA compliance, that did not exist previously. Mr. Peterson observed the numbers reflect a responsibility regarding parking, building coverage, lot coverage, but a definitive line had to be drawn, and setbacks was one of them. Mr. Peterson clarified that an existing structure can not become “more” non-complying (into a setback). Kevin Clayton spoke in favor of the amendment and asked if other lots in the village with the potential for redevelopment have been identified. Mr. Peterson replied there are eight or nine lots. There has been discussion of aggregating smaller existing lots to meet the 40,000 square foot coverage, however the amendment was written so that only affiliated lots existing as of the adoption of the amendment would be eligible. Tom Little, resident, noted the lack of a percentage for minimum lot coverage being indicated on page 3, 3.g, and asked if this matter would be addressed. Mr. Pierce reviewed two memos about a survey of surrounding communities which either had no limits or set a limit. Essex Junction, White River Junction, Middlebury have no limit. Killington sets a 40% limit. Williston sets a 60% limit in the village district. Hinesburg village has a 70% limit. Mr. Pierce suggested the Commission might wish to set the limit between 75% - 90%. Mr. Little suggested inserting a comma in place of a semi-colon in 3.e, 2nd to last line. Mr. Little said any use in a PUD is a conditional use. This will give the Planning Commission the ability to protect neighbors. There was further discussion of lot coverage “up to maximum of 80 percent” or with visible green space along a public right-of-way enhanced with landscaping. It was noted the Zoning Board has the ability to reduce coverage by 50%. Regarding landscaping, the addition of suggested language included: “…other conditions deemed by the Planning Commission”. It was also suggested in section 3.f, mention of the 40% cap be made or leave the language saying “the maximum lot coverage of 80% at the Planning Commission’s sole discretion to allow lot coverage in excess of 80% to achieve purposes of a PUD.” MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Gignoux, to forward to the Selectboard the revisions to the proposed Shelburne Zoning Bylaw Amendment (the amendment establishes provisions for a “Redevelopment PUD” within Section 1640.2 of the Shelburne zoning bylaws) as presented in the draft, dated 4/14/05 and modified as follows on May 12, 2005:
DISCUSSION: Mr. Pierce reported the Town Attorney is reviewing the proposed amendment, but no comments have been received at this time. Comments will be forwarded in tandem with the revisions. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2005 MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Ms. Kraushaar, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of 04/28/05 as written. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 4. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, WENDY SMITH, 175 HARBOR ROAD (DR05-06) Wendy Smith appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Wendy Smith stated her application was a result of the Fieldhouse project, which has necessitated a privacy fence to alleviate the effects of the project (Smith house is across from the access road to the Blodgett factory). Mr. Beldock has been notified of the estimated cost of the fence. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/12/05. Ms. Smith indicated that the fence might not be installed unil July . The understanding is the property owner (Smith) will install the fence. The landscape plan for the Fieldhouse project does indicate the need for landscaping on the parcel. However, the construction of the fence is not being tied to the Certificate of Occupancy. A letter of credit for landscaping has been provided for the Fieldhouse project to guarantee the landscaping plan is executed. Ms. Smith noted the Town Manager visited the site to view where the fence will be installed. Mr. Pierce said the Design Review Committee approved the application with the suggestion that the applicant monitor installation of the fence. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Fence, 175 Harbor Road, Wendy Smith (DR05-06) MOTION by Mr. Holland, seconded by Mr. Lapierre, to grant design review approval to Wendy Smith for a privacy fence on property at 175 Harbor Road as conditioned by the Design Review Committee and consistent with the plans submitted on 05/12/05. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.5. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, ALAN CLAYTON/CATHY CHENEY (d.b.a. Cucina Antica), 40 SHELBURNE SHOPPING PARK (DR05-09) No one appeared on behalf of the application. The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 05/12/05. There were no comments from the public. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Replacement Signage, 40 Shelburne Shopping Park, Clayton/Cheney [d.b.a. Cucina Antica] (DR05-09) MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Ms. Kraushaar, to grant design review approval to Alan Clayton/Cathy Cheney (d.b.a. Cucina Antica) for replacement signage on property at 40 Shelburne Shopping Park consistent with the plans submitted on 05/12/05. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.6. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, HARRINGTON’S IN VERMONT, INC., 5597 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR05-08) R.B. Klinkenberg appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Gignoux recused himself. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Klinkenberg explained there are three spaces totaling 6,000 s.f. at the back of the building, in addition to two commercial spaces at the building front. The applicant is proposing to expand one of the commercial spaces. Some of the uses in the rear space did not receive permits. . Harrington’s In Vermont is seeking to clear up any zoning issues. The Zoning Board ruled on 05/02/05 regarding the proposed expansion of retail space (former Vincent’s rug shoip). The board will be asked to approve use of space rented to the Shelburne Museum for storage and a proposal to convert the third bay to a cabinet maker’s shop at a later date. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/12/05. Mr. Peterson noted no exterior changes were planned. Mr. Pierce stated Design Review approval is needed owing to the proposed change (intensification) of use, even though no external changes are proposed. Mr. Klinkenberg said the design review process for signs will be followed when there is a tenant for the site. Mr. Peterson stated any exterior changes must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Interior Renovations for a change of use, 5597 Shelburne Shopping Park, Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc., (DR05-08) MOTION by Ms. Kraushaar, seconded by Mr. Schmidt, to grant design review approval to Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc., for interior renovations for a change of use on property at 5597 Shelburne Shopping Park consistent with the plans submitted on 05/12/05. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.7. SITE PLAN REVIEW - HARRINGTON’S IN VERMONT, INC., 5597 SHELBURNE ROAD (SP05-01) R. B. Klinkenberg appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Gignoux recused himself. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Klinkenberg explained Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc. occupies 3,000 square feet on the south side of the building complex. Two portions of the request related to changes in use (Shelburne Museum storage space in the middle area and a woodworking cabinet shop in the back area) were withdrawn at the Zoning Board hearing (the Zoning Board did not approve the requests). Neighbor Dennis Webster had expressed concerns about the woodworking shop. The Zoning Board suggested the two parties negotiate a compromise, and if an agreement could not be reached, then the woodworking shop portion or the application would be pursued. Regarding the Shelburne Museum storage, zoning issues are being cleared up. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/12/05. Mr. Pierce clarified the Zoning Board suggested withdrawing the woodworking portion of the application but did approve the retail use. The Planning Commission could, if it so chose, indicate a willingness to act on only one piece of the application and suggest that the applicant withdraw the others. However, at present, the application includes a site plan request pertaining to all proposed uses. Staff then made corrections to the Staff Report. Specific changes included corrections in the table summarizing the size of the spaces and references to the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Peterson commented two speculative uses in a site plan approval is questionable (the applicant is asking for new retail use and two other unspecified uses). Mr. Klinkenberg stated the Shelburne Museum is using space for storage of carriages (as has been done for the past seven years), and it was not realized zoning approval would be needed for this use. The Shelburne Museum wants to continue to use the space. There was further discussion of Planning Commission review (landscaping, screening, how adjoining properties are affected by the application) and that proposed uses as shown on the site plan would be part of the review. Following further consideration, the applicant decided to withdraw the woodworking use from the application. There was discussion of parking calculations, the access easement on the north side for Shelburne Café (Mr. Klinkenberg said café parking was unrestricted), potential retail use by a house wares tenant (no tenant at this point in time), the intent to rent retail space, and the need for zoning approval. Mr. Klinkenberg said he used the most aggressive retail parking calculations and still had space remaining. There is ample room on the north side of the site for off-street loading and turn around space. Mr. Pierce stated a change of use or intensification of use requires Planning Commission review (retail to retail does not constitute a change of use). Mr. Klinkenberg stated the former Woodbury’s space is storage for Harrington’s property. The Museum space is for carriage storage. The Zoning Board granted approval for expansion of the retail use. Mr. Klinkenberg explained Vincent’s used the back area as storage and for cleaning rugs. The use was retail at one time. Mr. Peterson asked if the Museum use is limited to storage. Mr. Klinkenberg replied that the Museum stores carriages on the site. Museum security checks the space on occasion. Mr. Peterson then reviewed matters of vehicle/pedestrian circulation (none), traffic circulation (no concerns), parking and loading (none), and landscaping and screening PUBLIC COMMENT Dennis Webster expressed concern about a propane tank located on the Harrington property (behind Mr. Webster’s house), two trees (Box Elders) that were dead or dying, and the issue of when various changes were permitted on the property. Several years ago, Harrington’s was located on a portion of the land it currently occupies. Harrington’s then purchased the adjacent property (former Chocolate Barn and Barber Shop), and the structures on that property were demolished to create a parking lot. Acccording to Mr. Webster, this change of use never was reviewed by the Zoning Board or the Planning Commission. Mr. Webster continued that noise emanates from the loading area and storm water drains onto his property. Mr. Klinkenberg said the Chocolate Barn was purchased in 1994 with the site work done in 1995. The proper permits were in place when the front of the Woodbury building was improved. Parking in the back has taken place for the past 20 years. An arborvitae hedgerow was planted at Mr. Webster’s request and a fence was installed where the Box Elders were. The application met all site plan reviews, said Mr. Klinkenberg. Mr. Webster asked the Planning Commission to consider snow storage as part of the review. Mr. Klinkenberg said the 2005 site plan was updated from the 1984 plan by the same individual. A natural gas system was installed 18 months ago and a 1,000-gallon tank will be removed. A smaller tank will be placed next to the building (this was discussed with Mr. Webster). A professional will examine and deal with the Box Elders. Safety issues have been addressed. Mr. Peterson asked about landscaping. Mr. Klinkenberg said he is not proposing any changes to the exterior, just interior changes. Mr. Pierce noted the conditional use application and site plan are on file. There was further discussion regarding the loading dock area, the Café Shelburne easement and four doors along the north side of the building, and exterior lighting (will be in compliance as required - cutoffs and downshielded lighting). Mr. Pierce stated any zoning violations that occurred 20 years ago exceeds the statute of limitations for remediation of 15 years. Mr. Pierce asked for clarification regarding snow storage. Mr. Webster stated snow piled on the hedge is killing some of the plantings. Parking is not an issue. A small swale might alleviate some storm water issues, suggested Mr. Webster. Mr. Klinkenberg stated there is a high water table. A swale did provide for some drainage collection. Mr. Piece will research past files related to Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc. DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan, Change in Use involving retail expansion, warehousing, and cabinet making, 5597 Shelburne Shopping Park, Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc. (SP05-01) MOTION by Ms. Kraushaar, seconded by Mr. Schmidt, to grant site plan approval to Harrington’s In Vermont, Inc. for change in use involving retrial expansion, warehousing, and cabinet making on property at 5597 Shelburne Shopping Park consistent with the plans submitted on 05/12/05 and subject to the following conditions:
CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Schmidt. Discussion ceased. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried. Mr. Gignoux rejoined the Planning Commission. 8. SKETCH PLAN REIVEW CONTINUANCE, WILLARD T. JACKSON et al & JEFFERY JACKSON, 4533 & 4539 HARBOR ROAD (SUB05-05) Steve Vock, David White, and Mark Hamelin appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS David White shared his impressions of the site visit held April 24th, mentioned additional studies conducted on the site, and reviewed the design process for the project, which included allowing land features to dictate use in the proposed subdivision and layout of roads. Mr. White mentioned that the site walk did not include the wetland/pond natural area in the center of the site which is proposed to remain untouched. Mr. White indicated that the intent of the design is to protect natural areas on the site. He also restated that existing “Radkin” buildings will be removed. Copies of the Forest Management Plan from 12 years ago were then given to the Planning Commission. According to Mr. White, this plan has been used as a guide to maintain the property. Tree cutting has been limited to culling over-mature trees, except when. a professional was engaged to clean up the site following the hurricane that affected Vermont. Mr. White added that the property is not enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal program (“current use”). A botanical survey has been completed by Diane McElwain (who contributed to the book Wetland, Woodland, Wildland: A Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont). A wildlife management plan is being prepared and will be forwarded. As part of this work, the development team has become aware of unusual species in the wetland and central areas, a limestone cedar natural community at the north edge of the 100’ setback (an example of a rare Vermont community), rare plants in a low area between Lots 4 and 5, and a potential threatened plant species along Harbor Road. The areas identified by the survey and plan will be flagged for protection. Other points addressed included: why Lot 1 is proposed to have two building envelopes s (one is for a house site and the second is intended to be used for an accessory structure such as a barn); ownership of the access road (the Town’s Tax Map indicates that the Shelburne Shipyard owns the northernmost section road, across which the Jacksons hold a 49.5’ wide easement); and the possibility of public access (Mr. White acknowledged the potential for a conservation easement on 19.5 acres to be held by a third party, such as the Vermont Land Trust, to ensure protection of the natural community in partnership with a homeowners association). Planning Commissioners raised concerns that the common areas as proposed would be too fragmented and would not allow public access. One Commissioner suggested the applicant consider placing a protective easement along the entire shoreline. Another suggested that building envelopes could be reconfigured. Mr. White indicated the proposed building envelopes could be refined at the preliminary plat stage. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/12/05. Mr. Pierce stated that the road frontage issues still must be resolved (Lot 4 with 350’ of road frontage does not meet the 400’ frontage requirement). The Town Attorney advises that lake frontage is not a substitute for road frontage, and the applicant must meet road frontage requirements where access is gained. In response, Mr. Vock stated that roadways can be moved in on every lot, but this might be detrimental and have an impact on tree cutting. Mr. Pierce suggested that road frontage issues would be made moot if the project was presented as a PRD. Staff will consult with the Town Attorney on the details. Mr. White pointed out Jeff Jackson’s lot does not have lake access or road frontage and was approved by a former Planning Commission. The applicant is seeking approval as planned versus arbitrarily moving building envelopes. Mr. Peterson confirmed the Commission heard testimony regarding public access and lack of access by land and legal restraints by road. Discussion turned to other topics. A public use with access via water, as part of a Paddler’s Trail, was suggested by one Planning Commissioner. As the approach was described by the Planning Commissioner, the property owners of the common land would have total control over the landing and could revoke permission to use the area if the privilege is abused. The organization would be self-policing and membership in a Paddler’s Trail organization is required in order to use the “trail”. Jeff Jackson stated that the Paddler’s Trail concept had been discussed in the past. But, currently, the preference is to leave the matter in the hands of the homeowners rather than impose a requirement. Mr. Schmidt expressed his support for public access and expressed concern that the aforementioned Forest Management Plan might not have been followed with regard to clearing timber to the lakeshore. Mr. Schmidt said he would like to do a site visit from the lake (to view the property while out on the water), and advocated for a bike turnaround some place on the site. Mr. Pierce noted a letter from Shelburne Shipyard, dated 05/12/05, was received, regarding their opposition to a bike/park terminus. Mr. White added there are serious reservations and fire issues related to public access and parking along a narrow road. Shelburne Shipyard found it necessary to engage year-round security. Concerns regarding bikes and pedestrians include enforcement, litter, and such. Ms. Kraushaar expressed concern about houses being built in the open fields on the site and the potential scale of clear cutting. Ms. Kraushaar suggested that, if a from-the-lake site visit is conducted, the building envelope corners and edges be clearly marked with stakes and flags and balloons indicating the location and height of the houses should be floated. Ms. Kraushaar also suggested that the location of the road/access should be reconsidered across the meadow. Mr. White responded that a road crossing the meadow would intrude upon the view from Harbor Road. Ms. Kraushaar then pointed out at least five rows of trees block the view from Harbor Road. Mr. White pointed out there is concern of “keyhole” views and loss of buffer from Shelburne Shipyard (tall masts of the boats). There will be further discussion of screening and open space at the next stage of review. Ms. Kraushaar spoke on behalf of Hilda White who commented the central area should be kept as one lot. Mr. Gignoux asked if the building envelopes are all 2.5 acres. Mr. White stated that Lot 3’s building envelope is the largest.. Mr. Gignoux commented 2/3 or 1/2 acre building envelopes seem extremely large. If a from-the-water site visit is held, balloons tied to center posts in the lots for viewing from the lake will allow the Planning Commission to get an idea of the height of the buildings and the view of this from the lake. Mr. Vock indicated that the applicant will do what is possible, but it should be noted that windy conditions will have an impact. Mr. Pierce asked about the status of research on the site’s historical and archeological resources and wondered if the applicant had been in contact with the Vermont State Archeologist. Mr. White, who noted that it is unclear if the State has any jurisdiction over archeology, stated an archeological survey was done by Doug Frink, an Archeology Consultant. According to Mr. White, cellar holes were discovered on Lot 1. Mr. Frink did historical research and the cellar holes may have been used in the 1880s. Test pits will be done to determine if this is a former house site. The fields will be plowed to see if Native American artifacts are located in any of the areas that are going to be disturbed, including the building envelopes on lots 1 and 2. A report will be forwarded to Town staff. PUBLIC COMMENT None DELIBERATION/DECISION Sketch Plan Continuance, Subdivision, 4533&4539 Harbor Road, Willard T. Jackson, et al & Jeffery Jackson, (SUB05-05) MOTION by Ms. Kraushaar, seconded by Mr. Schmidt, to schedule a water site visit for Wednesday, 05/18/05 at 5:00 p.m. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Gignoux, to continue sketch plan review for a six-lot subdivision of approximately 95 acres at 4533 Harbor Road and a 10-acre boundary line adjustment to 4539 Harbor Road (SUB05-05) until June 9, 2005. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 9. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL FOR THE ERNEST AUCLAIR FAMILY TRUST/MICHAEL ANDERSON, 51 POND ROAD (SUB04-10) Michael Burke appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lapierre recused themselves. Mr. Gignoux, Acting Chairperson, reviewed the letter from Krebs and Lansing, dated 04/13/05, regarding the request for a partial application determination. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Burke stated approval condition #7 will require a fair amount of time and investment. The applicant is requesting permission to address this particular item in advance of the other issues normally addressed during Preliminary Plan review. Mr. Burke said the applicant will make a substantial presentation related to land planning and legal documents. The Town Attorney’s opinion is the Planning Commission can choose to consider condition #7 in the manner of a request for “partial findings.” Mr. Burke also mentioned his interest in requesting an extension of the deadline for filing a Preliminary Plan application. Dean Pierce will provide Mr. Burke with a copy of the required form. DELIBERATION/DECISION Review of a Partial Application, Auclair/Anderson (SUB04-10) MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Holland, to authorize submission of a partial application focusing on Condition #7 of the Sketch Plan approval and other related conditions for SUB04-10 (Auclair/Anderson). DISCUSSION: Ms. Kraushaar expressed concern about setting a precedent. Mr. Schmidt expressed concern about dealing with such an important issue at the end of a lengthy agenda. CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Schmidt. Discussion ceased. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lapierre rejoined the Planning Commission. 10. REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ZONING REGULATIONS, THE MILLER GROUP, LLP, VERMONT TEDDY BEAR COMPLEX, SOUTH PARK ROAD, SHELBURNE Robert Miller, The Miller Group LLP, and Andy Rowe, Lamoureux and Dickinson, appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Miller requested the Planning Commission consider modifications to the zoning regulations as outlined in a letter from Lamoureux and Dickinson, dated 04/08/05. If an adjustment is possible, part of the parking lot would be built now. Future parking area can be provided. There was discussion of the distances on the property as presented on the site plan (51’ to the north of the Assembly Plant of which 30’is an easement to Lot B along an existing driveway). STAFF REPORT Mr. Pierce explained at issue is whether the Planning Commission wishes to add this zoning change request to its overall agenda. Mr. Miller asked if the Town was in the process of revising zoning regulations, noting the adjustment is an imaginary line. Mr. Miller requested being included on the Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Gignoux commented the Planning Commission must consider ramifications to the town by the proposed adjustment. Mr. Gignoux recalled the urgent request by the applicant for a PUD several years ago, and now the request to undo the situation. The applicant will be advised of the date the application will be discussed. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pierce reviewed the request from Margaret Dyer as outlined in a letter, dated 05/05/05, regarding an amendment to the Zoning Overlay Map. The boundary of the Village Core Overlay zone bisects one of her barns. Mr. Pierce explained that he had informed Ms. Dyer that the location of the zoning boundary line could be moved 50’ using a process spelled out in the Zoning bylaw. The process involves submitting a conditional use application with the Zoning Board. Staff was directed to encourage Ms. Dyer to pursue her request via the Zoning Board, since a change could be effected much more quickly than if pursued via an amendment to the Zoning map. 12. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Gignoux, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 26, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland. (Fred Schmidt was absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner. OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Thomas Bonnetle, Manny Gurowski, Henry Sorrell, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Mary Parker, Laurier Godard, Mr. Maille. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment 3. Approval of Minutes (5/12/05) 4. Design Review, Mary Parker, 821 Falls Road (DR05-10) 5. Design Review, Laurier Godard, 122 Marsett Road (DR05-11) 6. Design Review, Chris Spagnoletti, 5462 Shelburne Road (DR05-12) 7. Site Plan Review Continuance, Lake Champlain Transportation/Manny Gurowski & Tray Pecor, 2997 Shelburne Road (SP95-62R2) 8. Other Business, Correspondence 9. Adjournment [NOTE: The minutes reflect the order of the published agenda though items were covered in different order by the Planning Commission at the 5/26/05 meeting.] 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. and explained the proposed zoning change to add integrated agricultural activities (i.e. value added agricultural production) as conditional uses in the Rural 1 and Rural 2 districts. Advice from the town attorney includes having a purpose section that explicitly states the town is not regulating activities exempt per state law, and defining a threshold that clearly shows production from the integrated agricultural activity is less than half the agricultural farm income (e.g. to distinguish the integrated agricultural activity from a manufacturing operation). Dean Pierce reviewed proposed language covering farm/agricultural activities and hybrid land uses in the Rural 1 and 2 zones. Reference to the conditional use section of the zoning bylaws was noted in the proposed language. There was lengthy discussion of establishing and stating (in the regulations) a minimum income threshold for the integrated agricultural activities. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Maille, farmer, asked about dairy farms who rely on hay for the farm from their fields as well as income from the sale of hay from fields leased by the farm. Rick Peterson assured the activity described by Mr. Maille is allowed as agricultural/farm activities. MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to forward to the Selectboard for consideration an amendment establishing provision for a use known as “Integrated Agriculture” within the Rural 1 and Rural 2 zoning districts as presented in the draft warned for public hearing on May 26, 2005 and amended as follows: under the Purpose section (1610), delete the words “accepted agricultural practices”. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 12, 2005) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the 5/12/05 minutes as amended and including: -Spelling corrections: “Darien”, “until”, “retail”, “review”; -Page 2, Fieldhouse, LLC discussion, 3rd paragraph, sentence beginning “Mr. Gignoux interjected…” – clarify Mr. Gignoux is saying the matter is ineffectively settled once a conditional Certificate of Occupancy is issued; Item #2, Zoning Bylaw Amendment – insert the word “redevelopment” before each occurrence of “P.U.D.”; -Item #2, Zoning Bylaw Amendment, Public Comment, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence – change “responsibility” to “flexibility”, and in the 6th paragraph, 6th sentence – change “Planning Commission” to “Zoning Board”; -Item #7, Harrington’s application, Applicant Comments, 2nd sentence – delete “(the Zoning Board did not approve the requests)”, under Public Comment, 3rd paragraph, last sentence – delete “for remediation”, in the motion – delete “and cabinet making”; -Item #8, Jackson application, Harbor Road, note Tucker Holland recused himself, correct the voting by the Planning Commission to reflect five members voting, and note Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission following review/action on the application; -Item #8, Jackson application, Harbor Road, Applicant Comments, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence – delete “such as the Vermont Land Trust”; -Item #10, Miller Group, Vermont Teddy Bear - note that Reg Gignoux recused himself and returned to the Planning Commission following review/action on the application; -Item #10, Miller Group, Vermont Teddy Bear - in each occurrence, change reference to Mr. Gignoux to Mr. Peterson. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 4. DESIGN REVIEW, MARY PARKER, 821 FALLS ROAD (DR05-10) Mary Parker appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Ms. Parker explained the plan to locate a 10’ x 12’ shed for garden tool storage in the back yard. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 5/26/05. Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee approved the application as submitted provided the shed does not encroach into the setbacks. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Garden Shed, 821 Falls Road, Parker (DR05-10) MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant design review approval to Mary Parker for a garden shed on property at 821 Falls Road consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the condition the shed shall be located in compliance with all applicable setback requirements. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 5. DESIGN REVIEW, LAURIER GODARD, 122 MARSETT RD. (DR05-11) Laurier Godard appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Godard explained the plan to enclose an existing 18’ x 10.5’ deck creating a three-season room. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 5/26/05. Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee approved the application as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Three Season Room, 122 Marsett Rd., Godard (DR05-11) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to grant design review approval to Laurier Godard for a roughly 190 s.f. (18’x10.6’) three-season room on the rear of the house on property at 122 Marsett Road consistent with the plans submitted. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 6. DESIGN REVIEW, CHRIS SPAGNOLETTI, 5462 SHELBURNE ROAD (DR05-12) No one appeared on behalf of the application. The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 5/26/05. There were no public comments on the application. DELIBERATION/DECISION Design Review, Fence, 5462 Shelburne Road, Spagnoletti (DR05-12) MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to grant design review approval to Chris Spagnoletti for roughly 48’ of decorative fence plus two gates on property at 5462 Shelburne Road consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is authorized to use either the Warrior or Genesis fence design; 2. Modifications to the proposed fence design, including the third fence segment and gate at the northwest corner of the house, may be authorized by the HP&DRC without further review by the Planning Commission. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 7. SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSPORTATION/MANNY GUROWSKI&TRAY PECOR, 2997 SHELBURNE ROAD (SP95-62R2) Manny Gurowski and Henry Sorrell appeared on behalf of the application. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Gurowski responded to the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the last review. There are 33 parking spaces on site with two handicap parking spaces by the front entrance. There is a handicap ramp into the building along with stairs. The curb cut on Route 7 will be closed (access to the site will be from Hullcrest Drive) and the space between the building and Route 7 (125’) will be restored to lawn. There are two lights by the entrance to the building, one street light by Route 7, and one light on the side of the building. Dimensions for the overhead door and two other doors in the back of the building are noted on the site plan. There are lilac bushes and locust trees on the site. Six foot high cedar trees will be added for screening. The vegetation by the adjacent residential properties on Hullcrest Drive will remain. Approximately $13,000 will be spent on landscaping. An itemized list of plantings will be submitted. The dumpster has been relocated to the end of the parking lot. The dumpster will be fenced (stockade fence) and screened. The air conditioning unit at the back of the building will be fenced (stockade fence). The parking places on the paved portion of the lot will be striped and in the proper direction to facilitate traffic flow. There will be curb stops on the gravel portion of the parking area. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 5/26/05. Dean Pierce will investigate whether a variance from the setback was received for the air conditioning unit. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Bonnetle, 72 Hullcrest Drive, requested the dumpster be located behind the building (original position) rather than on the east side of the parking lot as proposed. Mr. Bonnetle expressed concern about odor from hair care products being disposed of in the dumpster and the dumpster being in clear view from his deck, especially when the deciduous trees lose their leaves in the winter time. The applicant agreed to move the dumpster. DELIBERATION/DECISION Site Plan, Hair Salon and Office Space, 2997 Shelburne Road, Lake Champlain Transportation//Manny Gurowski&Tray Pecor (SP95-6R2) MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant site plan approval to Lake Champlain Transportation/Manny Gurowski & Tray Pecor for conversion of retail/wholesale space into a hair salon and office space at 2997 Shelburne Road consistent with the plans submitted at the May 26, 2005 hearing and subject to the following conditions: 1. Site lighting shall comply with the standards in the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws within 12 months of this approval. 2. The site plan shall be revised to depict landscaping required in connection with Verizon Corporation’s utility easement in the northeast corner of the property and closure of the direct access to Shelburne Road. 3. An appropriate financial guarantee for the new/proposed landscaping shall be provided by the applicant. 4. The dumpster shall be relocated from the position shown on the site plan to a location on the easterly side of the building (parking space number 30). 5. The air conditioning unit portion of the site plan is approved subject to the finding that the unit was previously approved by the Town of Shelburne or the unit complies with setback requirements or any variances issued. 6. All previously approved conditions are not affected by this decision and shall remain in effect. 7. Within 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 owner(s) of the approval and conditions. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. 8. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE Conditional Certificate of Occupancy Reg Gignoux suggested the Planning Commission send a letter to the Selectboard explaining the Town Plan or zoning bylaws do not permit the Planning Commission to allow conditional certificates of occupancy. There is concern the Selectboard may not understand the permitting process. Additionally, there is concern about setting a precedent. The message needs to be delivered that all applicants are treated fairly by the Planning Commission. Dean Pierce noted the Beldock application is on the June 9th Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission would like the applicant to provide an update on progress on each condition of the approval at the June 9th meeting. Dean Pierce will provide the Planning Commission with a copy of the September Planning Commission minutes which list the conditions of approval for the Beldock application. Zoning Changes There was discussion of how to handle other requests for zoning changes that have been brought before the Planning Commission. It was agreed as work progresses on the update of the Town Plan, many of the issues will be addressed. Progress on Town Plan Update Dean Pierce provided the Planning Commission with a schedule of work sessions. Update of Regional Plan Reaction to the housing projections for the region is requested by the Regional Planning Commission. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes transcribed from tape and respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
January 2005Planning Commission Minutes February 2005 Planning Commission Minutes March 2005 Planning Commission Minutes April 2005 Planning Commission Minutes May 2005 Planning Commission Minutes June 2005 Planning Commission Minutes July 2005 Planning Commission Minutes August 2005 Planning Commission Minutes September 2005 Planning Commission Minutes October 2005 Planning Commission Minutes November 2005 Planning Commission Minutes December 2005 Planning Commission Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2008 |
