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

STAFF PRESENT:                None.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dave Marshall, Aileen Stephens, Jack Milbank

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (6/23/05)

3.      Design Review, Aileen Stephens, 1036 Falls Road (DR05-17)

4.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Douglas G. Hyde, 943 Mt. Philo Road (SUB05-06)

5.      Final Plan Amendment, Town of Shelburne/Fieldhouse, LLC (successor to Bullrock, Inc.), 154 Turtle Lane, 14-36 Harrington Circle (formerly 19 Harbor Road), & 166 Athletic Drive (formerly 166 Blodgett Road) (SUB04-06R2)

6.      Other Business, Correspondence

7.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

 

Aileen Stephens appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Stephens stated the two sets of stairs on the deck will be eliminated as well as the proposed fencing. The deck will have railing on three sides and a built in bench.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 7/14/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Chairman Peterson noted Fred Schmidt will recuse himself which would mean a quorum is not present.

 

 

Jack Milbank appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Milbank explained the technical mistake made by his firm related to the boundary line on the third lot (with the fieldhouse). The buildings were laid out based on the original boundary line, but then it was discovered there was some encroachment (the lines were not parallel with the right-of-way) and a correction was necessary. With the correction, Lot #2 will gain acreage from Lot #1.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 7/14/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Chairman Peterson announced at the work session on 7/21/05 the final draft of Volume 1 of the Town Plan will be reviewed.

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Joseph Maille, Trafton Crandall, Sylvia Maille, Maureen O’Brien, Douglas Hyde, Matt Wamsganz, John Wagner, Michael Gravelin, Rose Garritano, Oda Hubbard, Karen Villanti, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (7/14/05)

3.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Douglas G. Hyde, 943 Mt. Philo Road (SUB05-06)

4.      Sketch Plan Review, John Wagner/WAG, LLC, 4592 Dorset Street (SUB05-08)

5.      Other Business, Correspondence

6.      Adjournment

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

 

 

Doug Hyde and Matt Wamsganz appeared on behalf of the application. Fred Schmidt recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant discussed the suggestions from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee regarding frontage on Mt. Philo Road with Lot #1 and access to Lot #3 as well as making the lots a more regular shape (as opposed to elongated). It was noted the northwest corner of the parcel is separated from Lot #2 by a stream so functionally the land would be better used and accessed by Lot #1.  Doug Hyde did not support the suggestions by the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, noting the lots were configured so the open field by Mount Philo is maintained, not developed, and the existing views are preserved.  Mr. Hyde said he would consider combining land with the existing rear lot (Lot #3).  Each lot has 200’ of road frontage.  Dean Pierce clarified the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee is not suggesting moving the building envelopes closer to Mount Philo.  Rick Peterson questioned how changing the boundary line renders the property more easily accessed. Mr. Pierce stated the issue is the distance traveled to get to the parcel. Mr. Hyde pointed out there is vehicle access to the lot and changing the boundary line will not impact that fact.  Rick Peterson stated having the third lot (open land) in single ownership is appealing. Following further discussion, there was agreement the boundary line should be located at the base of the ravine on the property.  Matt Wamsganz pointed out Lot #1 can not be further subdivided because there is not enough acreage to meet the requirements of the zone, and if the line is adjusted, it appears Lot #2 will not have enough acreage for further subdivision. Mr. Hyde does not want restrictions on Lot #3 regarding further subdivision if there are restrictions placed on lots 1 & 2, stated Mr. Wamsganz. Mr. Hyde explained though it seems unlikely the land will be subdivided because of the wetlands, the future is not known and it is desired to retain the potential to adapt to changing circumstances.  Mr. Hyde said he would agree to a limited subdivision prohibition (for example, no further subdivision for the next 10 years).

 

There was discussion of access to the property through the Anderson driveway. Mr. Hyde noted Tom Anderson advised he does not want to grant a permanent easement to the land along his driveway. The access to the existing house can remain, but a separate driveway to the other lots must be built when the lots are developed.

 

Matt Wamsganz stated application for a state waste water permit will be submitted after sketch plan approval is secured.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 7/28/05.  Dean Pierce stated the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee and the Paths Committee are looking at both the Hyde and Anderson projects. The Anderson subdivision final plat shows a right-of-way to serve the Hyde property (existing house). Mr. Anderson may consider an easement farther from the Anderson house to serve all three of the Hyde lots. Rick Peterson pointed out this would not meet the objective of decreasing the number of curb cuts on Mt. Philo Road.

 

There was further discussion of access and development of the lots. Matt Wamsganz stated there are building envelopes on each lot in which development is allowed; the area out front remains open.  Mr. Hyde reiterated his preference not to encumber the rear parcel at this point in time, emphasizing it is unlikely there can or will be development on the lot.  An easement along Mt. Philo Road for the town is encouraged. An easement along the back portion of Lot #3 is not desirable. Proposals from the Paths Committee have not been received, stated Mr. Hyde.  Rick Peterson urged the applicant to discuss the matter further with the Paths Committee.

 

Tucker Holland asked about not changing the boundary line of Lot #2 and having a path easement located exclusively on Lot #2. The applicant indicated this is acceptable as is having a restriction from further subdivision of Lot #2.

 

Claude LaPierre stated his preference to move the boundary line on Lot #2 so the lots are of a more regular shape and having a 10 year subdivision restriction on Lot #3.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Fred Schmidt returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Trafton Crandall, engineer, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Crandall stated the sketch plan before the Planning Commission is a new application that takes into account comments heard at the review of the previously submitted sketch plan. The approximately 40 acres of open field and existing farmland is part of the larger Sutton farm. Adjoining property to the east is under conservation trust. The land to the south is actively being farmed. There is a barn across the street which is in use, and the existing farmhouse is an historic building with barns behind it (an aerial photograph of the land was shown).  There is a residence and a horse farm to the north, a tree line along the northern and southern boundary lines, and a large wooded area to the west. The land is open to the south and east.  The topography is rolling hill from Dorset Street. There are wetlands on the property (class 3 wetlands) which have been delineated by Natural Resources Consulting Services (the applicant submitted the report from the wetlands consultant).  The development proposal includes a PRD of six house lots. The property is in Rural District 1 (a PRD is allowed in the district).  There are mapped resources per the Town Plan, including agricultural soils (statewide significance, Vergennes Clay, Covington) and the viewshed (foreground primary view and foreground secondary view). The proposed house locations avoid the primary view area and are close to the edge of the secondary view area. Clustering the houses on the northern boundary minimizes the impacts on the agricultural soils. Also, the houses are located away from the wetlands. There will be 5.5 acres subdivided from the PRD for the farmstead (Lot #8), continued Mr. Crandall.  The PRD allows clustering of the houses in order to retain a large open space area. Lot #7 will have 21.5 acres of open space (this represents approximately 50% or greater of the total acreage which exceeds the 33% required to remain open per zoning). Lot #7 which is part of the PRD will have an agricultural use easement to the farmstead (Lot #8). The homeowners association will own Lot #7 (open land).  Mr. Crandall read the “Right to Farm” language to be included in the deeds (Rick Peterson advised the language should parallel the language from the State Agriculture Department regarding rights to farm). Mr. Crandall stated there will be on-site waste water systems and wells for water (two waste water systems are proposed versus one large system). A fire pond for fire protection will be built. The pond will also catch storm water run off from the road to the houses. Mr. Crandall emphasized the proposal tries to maintain the rural character of the area. The density is being maximized, but the houses are being located to minimize impact. The house on the front side of the hill will be visible from Dorset Street, and this is in keeping with the housing in the neighborhood. The remainder of the houses will be on the other side of the crown of the hill. The roof line of house #2 may be visible, but additional trees will be added to the existing tree line to provide more screening. Houses 3, 4, 5, and 6 will not be visible from Dorset Street. The houses are located against the tree line to help absorb visual impact. The wooded area will also provide screening.

 

The applicant acknowledged a PRD is subject to site plan review, and will provide the additional necessary information at subsequent reviews. Information on traffic circulation and safety (vehicular and pedestrian), road specifications (24’ wide road with turnaround for emergency vehicles built to town standards), hydrants for fire protections, and tree cutting/screening will be provided. Mr. Crandall noted the land is suitable for subdivision. The slopes are not too steep and the soils are suitable for on-site sewer systems. The layout of the PRD does consider existing natural resources (wetlands, open space, tree lines). The density is accommodated without creating undue impact. The development will not create undue impact on municipal services.  The Shelburne Natural Resources Committee recommendation to do a management plan for the maintenance of the open space is acceptable and will be done, stated Mr. Crandall. A conservation easement will allow agricultural use of the open space. No development will be allowed on Lot #7.

 

There was discussion of the building envelopes. Mr. Crandall stated moving the boundary line on lot #6 and adding .75 acre to Lot #7 may locate the houses too close to each other. Also, Lot #6 is adjacent to the open land. The building envelopes can be adjusted to protect the view. There will be no building allowed on the crown of the hill.

 

Regarding the roads, drainage, and public safety (Stop sign), the applicant will work with the Public Works Director on these matters. There is a VAST trail on the property presently. An easement to allow crossing the property outside of the house lots is acceptable.

 

Fred Schmidt commended the applicant on the improved development design. Mr. Schmidt asked about the farmhouse. John Wagner stated the house is being renovated. The old bricks have been sold to an individual who does house restorations. Much effort and money has been put into the restoration of the farmhouse which is the most visual part of the property. The house will be restored to “A-1” condition.  Fred Schmidt asked about the views being blocked by the houses per the building envelopes (the house on Lot #2 will block the view to the east of Lot #3, and Lot #5 will have a view to the south only). Trafton Crandall pointed out the lots are against the north property line. There is a 75’ buffer with the road plus 25’ setback to the property line. The building envelopes were located to avoid headlights shining into windows and the VAST trail on the housing lots.  Kay Kraushaar commented that if the road is moved toward the open field, the houses can be tucked closer to the trees.  John Wagner noted the intent was to get extra buffer from the Garritano property (horse farm). If the road is moved, there is conflict with the septic system (moving the septic system means more agricultural land will be used). Engineering on the site needs to be done to determine precisely where the septic systems will be located, stated Mr. Crandall.

 

Tucker Holland asked about the size of the houses (footprint) and the building envelopes. Mr. Crandall stated the size of the building envelopes have not been established, but all setbacks will be met. The footprint of the houses will be two story, 40’ x 30’ (2,500 s.f. to 3,000 s.f.) with an attached garage.  Restrictions on the footprints are not being proposed, but the on-site septic system is designed for three bedrooms.  Mr. Holland asked about the location of the septic system impeding agricultural activities. Mr. Crandall stated a farmer can not crop on top of the septic system (mound system), but hay can be grown on the replacement system.  A 25’ buffer below the existing mound system is needed.

 

Rick Peterson asked about adding land to Lot #8 from the common land. Mr. Crandall stated the acreage is needed for the waste water system easement.  Mr. Peterson asked if the farmhouse (Lot #8) will be marketing with use of the land behind it for agricultural purposes. Mr. Crandall confirmed this. John Wagner pointed out the five acre farmstead (untouched) plus the area for the six houses leaves 70% of the acreage open.  Tucker Holland commented on the difficulty of finding someone to farm the land, and asked about restrictions on the land being maintained as open land. Mr. Crandall reiterated the management plan for the open space will have a fallback plan of annual/biannual mowing, for example.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 7/28/05. Dean Pierce noted the Planning Commission may want to consider the building envelopes and additional landscaping to buffer properties along the north side of the road.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Rose Garritano, neighbor to the north, expressed concern about the capacity of the soils for waste water systems, ground and surface water pollution, water supply (wells in the area are low yield), proximity of the development to her house and horse farm, storm water run off, and light pollution.  Ms. Garritano requested a six foot berm planted with trees be built on the north side of the road to reduce light pollution (presently the area is dark and quiet) and control storm water run off onto her property. Trafton Crandall stated there will be swales to collect run off from the road and direct the water into the fire pond. The road itself will create a water shed divide. The setbacks for the waste water system exceed the recommendation from the state. It must be demonstrated that the waste water system can support six houses or the number of bedrooms must be decreased.  Test wells may have to be drilled to determine water capacity.

 

Sylvia Maille, neighbor on the southern part of the property, noted there is minimal buffer on her end of the property. More screening is needed. Ms. Maille asked about the second septic system and proximity to the wetlands. Mr. Crandall assured the setback requirements are exceeded, and properly designed systems will not have an impact on wetlands. In fact, there could be treated water contributing to the water in the wetlands.  Ms. Maille noted there is run off from west to east across the road. Mr. Crandall stated there will be an erosion/storm water control plan to address run off. Temporary controls during construction will be in place. There will be permanent controls when the development is complete.  Ms. Maille asked if the VAST trail easement will be in the deed or handled by the homeowners association.  Mr. Crandall stated there will be an easement in the homeowners association agreement and possibly also in the deeds. Safety will be an issue with the location of the VAST trail on the property.  Speed limit signs will be posted.

 

Maureen O’Brien, neighbor to the north, commented this is the third plan put forth for the property, and with each rendering, the septic system has been relocated. Ms. O’Brien questioned if the soils can support the septic systems.  Regarding views, traveling north on Dorset Street, the entire field is visible and the proposed houses will be visible. To the south there is minimal light pollution. The view to the north (toward South Burlington) shows much light pollution. With more houses, there will be more lights. Additional screening, increasing the buffer from the hedgerow is needed.  Ms. O’Brien suggested what makes sense for the property should be done, and this may mean the number of houses should be reduced (six houses may not be right for the area) or fewer houses with more bedrooms could be built.  Mr. Crandall stated exterior lights will be downshielded to minimize glare and light pollution.

 

Oda Hubbard, Shelburne resident, asked if the residents of the brick farmhouse will be allowed to build a horse barn on the agricultural land, noting this could impact views. Mr. Crandall stated restrictions on the farm(house) building are not being proposed. Ms. Hubbard suggested lots 2&3 should be reduced in size so the corner lots (pie shaped lots) can be reconfigured so the houses on the lots are not built by the road. Mr. Crandall agreed some rearranging to optimize the views can be done. The building envelope on Lot #2 will be located such that a house can not be built on the top of the hill.  Fred Schmidt asked that the existing building envelopes on the adjacent properties be shown on the site plan at the next review to help determine if the proposed development matches the character of the area.  Ms. Hubbard suggested potential buyers of the lots be urged to build houses designed more in line with the brick farmhouse (Vermont style of house).  Mr. Crandall stated the roofing material on the houses will be dark and non-reflective.

 

Tucker Holland suggested the houses on lots 2&3 be on the southern side of the road, possibly with Lot #1. Rose Garritano spoke in support of the houses being farther from the hedgerow provided there is a six foot berm.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dean Pierce provided the Planning Commission with copies of Volume II of the Town Plan and a list of maps for review and comment.

 

Dean Pierce provided the Commission with a copy of an article on housing from the Planning Commission Journal.

MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

 

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