MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Fred Schmidt, Reg Gignoux.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Marge Sharp, Connie Hoffman, Carol Wellings, David Miskell.

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (6/9/05)

3.      Design Review, Catamount/HIS/Shelburne, LLC & Sweet William Cottage, 11 Falls Road (DR05-14)

4.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Willard T. Jackson, et al & Jeffrey Jackson, 4533&4539 Harbor Rd. (SUB05-05)

5.      Other Business, Correspondence

6.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the 6/9/05 minutes with the following corrections:

-Globally correct the name spellings of “Dinse”, “Milbank”, “Laurel”, “Kennaugh”, and correct the street address of Mr. Bloomberg to “General Green Road”;

-Correct the Fernandez design review application number to “DR05-13”

VOTING:  unanimous (7-0); motion carried.

 

Connie Hoffman and Carol Wellings appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant explained the proposed improvements approved by the Design Review Committee.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 6/23/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Tucker Holland recused himself.  Rick Peterson summarized where the application is procedurally, noting this is the fourth sketch plan public hearing. The Planning Commission conducted two site visits, one on land and one on the lake. Prior to the meeting (on 6/23/05), the Planning Commission deliberated the application and a draft approval motion was submitted to the applicant. The applicant submitted a request in writing (letter dated 6/23/05) to postpone consideration of the application until July 14, 2005 to allow time to evaluate the implications of the conditions in the staff report.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the request to delay submitted by the applicant. It was noted no one representing the application was in attendance. Kay Kraushaar questioned beginning the review process again, pointing out the Planning Commission has already received input on the application and spent much time crafting a motion of approval.  The cooperative dialogue mentioned by the applicant was acknowledged by the Planning Commission.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the sketch plan submitted by Willard T. Jackson, et al, as depicted in Sheet C1, Proposed Subdivision Plan, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated March, 2005, subject to the following conditions:

A)    Address the issues raised in the May 3, 2005 letter form Alan Huizenga, consulting engineer for the town;

B)    Contain information responding to comments made by the Shelburne Fire Chief and the Head of the Shelburne Water Department;

C)    Contain required information identified in the Preliminary Plan Checklist contained in the Town of Shelburne Subdivision Procedures and Application;

D)    Include a “Natural Communities Management Plan” that shall be developed by the applicant in collaboration with qualified professionals (e.g. wildlife biologists, ecologists, foresters); the Natural Communities Management Plan shall be developed to maintain and preserve sensitive or valuable natural communities that are identified on the entire property, and as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval, compliance with the Natural Communities Management Plan shall be imposed on affected lot owners;

E)     Include a proposed regime for limiting the color of structures with the intent of reducing the visibility of structures when viewed from Lake Champlain or Shelburne Bay.

2.                  Plans submitted with any Preliminary Plan application shall depict an area upon which a conservation easement shall be held by an entity or organization qualified to hold conservations easements in the State of Vermont (“the Conservation Easement Area”), and specifically:

A)    The Conservation Easement Area shall encompass the area shown on the Alternate plan as the “Conservation & Common Area Easement” plus all land located within 150 feet landward of the 102-foot elevation contour, but in order to accommodate existing structures, shall only include land within 100 feet landward of the 102-foot contour on the lot depicted as “Jeff and Carol Jackson, 15.4 Acres”;

B)    The Conservation Easement Area shall constitute a separate lot owned jointly by the lot owners or by a homeowners association;

C)    The primary purpose of the conservation easement shall be to maintain and preserve the natural areas while allowing limited use by lot owners and to enable managed public access for educational objectives;

D)    Within 25 feet of the water’s edge along the western half of what is depicted as Lot 4 on the sketch plan, the conservation easement shall not prohibit public access from the Lake for boaters.

3.                  Plans submitted with any Preliminary Plan application shall revise each lot by deleting those portions lying within the Conservation Easement Area which shall constitute a separate lot, and in addition:

A)    Lot 1 shall show a reduced Buildable Area by deleting the northeasterly corner of the western building envelope as depicted on the “Alternate Subdivision Plan, Sheet Number L1.0”, submitted June 9, 2005, and the entire eastern Buildable Area;

B)    Lot 6 shall show a reduced Buildable Area by deleting all of the remaining narrow southern prominence as depicted on said Alternate Subdivision Plan.

4.                  Plans submitted with any Preliminary Plan application shall include a plan of sectored development restrictions that shall be applicable to each lot as follows:

A)    Building Envelope.  Within the Buildable Area of each lot there shall be a floating zone of not more than 43,560 contiguous square feet (1 acre) within which there may be constructed a residence and accessory outbuildings, patios, swimming pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures (the “Building Envelope”), and further, the Building Envelope must be triangular, four–sided or circular in shape and shall be identified no later than upon application for a building permit;

B)    Limited Development Area.  The Limited Development Area shall encompass land contained within the Buildable Area outside of the Building Envelope, and the Limited Development Area may be used only for driveways and landscaping improvements, such as gardens, stone walls, fences and plantings;

C)    Undeveloped Area.  The portion of each lot outside the Buildable Area may be used only for driveway and underground utility improvements and modest landscaping improvements, such as driveway markers and stone walls when consistent with the Natural Communities Management Plan, and such improvements shall minimize impacts on open space and scenic views.  Within the Undeveloped Area, mature trees shall be maintained and replaced when lost due to disease or natural disaster, however, invasive species and some immature trees may be thinned provided the general character of the area is not materially disturbed.  Also within the Undeveloped Area, each lot owner shall have affirmative obligations to comply with the Natural Communities Management Plan, imposed by covenants of lot owners;

D)    A “lot by lot” proposal for restrictions reflecting the necessity of maintaining the general character of the area and screening views of the homes from the water with particular emphasis on retaining the wooded character of Lot Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

5.                  Any Preliminary Plan application and plans associated with same shall recognize that seawalls and retaining walls shall be prohibited.

6.                  In any Preliminary Plan application, the lot depicted as “Jeff and Carol Jackson, 15.4 Acres” shall be included as a lot in the proposed subdivision with a Buildable Area of similar size to the other lots and a Building Envelope of one acre around the existing structures.

7.                  The further subdivision of the lots shall be prohibited as a condition of any final approval and reciprocal deed covenants of lot owners.

8.                  Any Preliminary Plan application and associated plans shall reflect that Lot 4 shall be served by a single driveway in one of the two locations depicted on the original sketch plan.

9.                  Any Preliminary Plan application shall include an archeological report developed by the applicant in collaboration with qualified professionals, and the archeological report shall identify and describe any known archeological resources on the site as well as any potential archeologically sensitive areas throughout the property.

10.              Prior to filing a Preliminary Plan application, the applicants shall submit a written opinion by a Vermont attorney as to the location, nature and scope of access to the subject property, including information as to the location of the terminus of the public highway known as Harbor Road and production of the documents by which legal access exists from the terminus of Harbor Road to the property, and should Harbor Road abut the property or should the scope of the legal access from Harbor Road to the property include the opportunity for public access to the property, the Planning Commission may require the applicants to present information concerning their intent as to incorporation of an appropriate right of public access (including a modification of the project design to accommodate such access) prior to filing a Preliminary Plan application.

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission, but recused himself from the vote on the classification of the Jackson subdivision. Due to an oversight, the following motions occurred at the end of the meeting, but are shown here for continuity:

 

 

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

Dean Pierce updated the Planning Commission on the Selectboard’s action with regard to the three proposed zoning changes (integrated agriculture, exceptions to setbacks for handicap access, and redevelopment PUD). There was discussion of the elimination of the setback and the potential for a garage structure to be built on the property line. Following further discussion, Dean Pierce will communicate the Planning Commission’s position that the Zoning Administrator can handle applications going to a five foot setback, but encroachment into the setbacks should be reviewed under conditional use criteria by the Zoning Board. Regarding integrated agriculture, the Selectboard discussed setting a minimum percentage, but did not change the language and warned a public hearing on 6/30/05. The Planning Commission reiterated support of the position that a specific minimum percentage relative to the integrated agricultural activity does not need to be set.  Regarding redevelopment PUD, Dean Pierce reported the content of the amendments were not changed by the Selectboard so the section was warned for public hearing except for the last two items pertaining to the relationship between the Village Core Overlay and the Redevelopment PUD.  The Town Attorney recommends a developer must choose approval under Redevelopment PUD (to increase the footprint by 25%) or approval under the Village Core Overlay (allows 35% lot coverage).  There was discussion of Section 970.4 – Qualifying Structure, and that an existing structure in a PUD is not a qualifying structure. There are eight properties in the village eligible for Redevelopment PUD (i.e. 40,000 s.f. lot).  Paragraph 8 (noncomplying structures and conformance with PUD was discussed. Paragraph 8 says a minor level of change to a noncomplying structure does not justify amendment to the R-PUD. Reg Gignoux suggested Paragraph 8 be deleted. Changes to a structure should be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure the applicant thinks through the project, stated Mr. Gignoux. The Planning Commission concurred.

 

Staff reported two responses to the RFP have been received. A final recommendation with a draft motion will be available on 7/14/05.

 

Dean Pierce reported more information is needed from the applicant regarding discussions with the Paths Committee about paths on the property. The site plan does not reflect paths. The Planning Commission stressed the need for the application to be complete prior to the next review.

 

6.         ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.

The meeting was reopened to take action on the classification of the Jackson subdivision (see motions at the end of the deliberative section of the Jackson application).

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.