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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ken Cartularo, Karla Toensing, Paul Duchesneau, Dave Marshall, Ed Precourt, JoAnne Precourt, Cindy Hall, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (7/28/05)

3.      Design Review, Karla Toensing/Scout Investments, LLC, 65 Falls Road (DR05-20)

4.      Sketch Plan Amendment, Buono Appettito Corp./Ken Cartularo, 3182 & 3198 Shelburne Road (SP03-01R2)

5.      Partial Preliminary Plan Review, Michael Anderson, 61 Pond Road (SUB04-10)

6.      PRD Preliminary Plan Review, Kelly View LLC/Edward & JoAnne Precourt/Kevin& Elaine Cieplicki, 2024 Spear Street, 20 Westview Drive, and 37 Barstow Road (SUB05-07)

7.      Town Plan/Regional Plan Status

8.      Other Business, Correspondence

9.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.

 

 

Karla Toensing appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Toensing described the wooden sign with hand-painted letters for her stationary business to be installed on the existing sign post.  There will also be a smaller sign displaying the telephone number. The existing lighting (down shielded) will be used.  The footprint for the sign is unchanged from the existing sign.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/11/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dave Marshall, Civil Engineer Associates, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Marshall reviewed the site plan and current uses on the property (restaurant, office, retail).  The proposal is to use the ground floor space in the building at 3198 Shelburne Road for specialty retail (kitchen cabinetry sales). Town and Country Kitchens is interested in leasing the space. The applicant is requesting 1,000 s.f. of office space be substituted for 1,000 s.f. of specialty retail space (to yield a total of 2,000 s.f. of specialty retail space). A loading dock will be added to the rear of the property. The front area that is paved will be converted to grass. It is estimated there will be two to three deliveries per week to the kitchen shop (20 minute deliveries). There was discussion of using the loading dock space for employee parking since the delivery schedule is so infrequent.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/11/05. Dean Pierce provided a table showing parking requirements for the use (total of 15 parking spaces are needed).  Dave Marshall pointed out the parking requirements apply to standard retail, but the kitchen retail use is specialty retail. The hours of operation for the kitchen shop will likely be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. while the restaurant is open from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. with the busiest time being 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. There should not be conflicts between the businesses with regard to parking.  Following further discussion of traffic generation for the kitchen use, the Planning Commission felt 14 parking spaces would be adequate.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the amendment to the site plan submitted by Buono Appettito Corp. (SP03-01R2) for property at 3182 Shelburne Road and 3198 Shelburne Road (conversion of office space to specialty retail space) consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions:

1.                  The project must receive conditional use approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

2.                  All other conditions of approval associated with the prior Planning Commission actions must not be in conflict with the proposal and shall remain in effect.

3.                  The Planning Commission finds that the existing allocation of parking spaces for the building at 3198 Shelburne Road (i.e. 14 parking spaces) is reasonable for the proposed specialty retail use.

VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. It was noted both Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre would recuse themselves from deliberation/decision on the application which would leave only two members of the Planning Commission available to review the application at this time. Due to lack of a quorum, the application review was postponed until 8/25/05.

 

Ed Precourt and Paul Duchesneau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ed Precourt reviewed the drainage work done to date (catch basin installed, culvert extended). There is additional drainage work to be done pending approval of the site plan.  The driveway was moved closer to the water hydrant. Impact on the wetlands is less than a half acre.  Paul Duchesneau reviewed utilities (water and sewer lines) to serve the three building lots (the fourth lot is open space).  Power will be underground. Grading has been shown on the site plan.  The building envelopes are 20,000 s.f. and the balance of the acreage of each lot will be open. On Lot #4, there is .4 acre set aside for an easement, so there is actually 9.8 acres of open space on the lot (32.5%), but with the balance of open area from the surrounding three lots, the amount of open space exceeds 33% as required for a PRD. Dean Pierce noted there has been concern about areas located on specific lots being counted as PRD open space. Rick Peterson suggested moving a boundary line on one of the other lots to add the necessary land to Lot #4 in order to meet the open space requirement for a PRD.

 

There was discussion of the septic system located on a steep incline and potential to adversely impact neighbors. The applicant stated the soils are exemplary for on-site systems per state and local regulations. The proposed septic system matches the community system across the road.

 

The applicant noted their attorney drafted basic covenants to manage the open/common land of the PRD.  The covenants will be attached to the deeds for the lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/11/05.  Dean Pierce asked about footing drains by the houses and if the houses will have basements or be on slabs. Mr. Duchesneau stated the builder of the houses will determine whether conventional basements will be installed or not.

 

The Planning Commission and the applicant received a copy of the letter from Steve Vock, dated 8/9/05, and Jonathan Ashley, dated 8/4/05. It was noted Steve Vock is reviewing site issues and Mr. Ashley is reviewing the utilities on the site.  The applicant indicated no exceptions are taken to the remarks from the town’s engineers.

 

Rick Peterson asked about an easement for a bike path. Dean Pierce stated typically the town is looking for a 20’ wide easement adjacent to the edge of the right-of-way. A road easement, or transportation easement, must be subtracted from the lot acreage. The Planning Commission felt the applicant should not be penalized for providing an easement. Mr. Pierce suggested the Planning Commission could find that the area of Lot #4 together with areas outside the building envelopes and driveways of lots #1, #2, and #3 shall constitute the open space of the PRD and meet or exceed the requirement of 33% open space.

 

Reg Gignoux mentioned the width of the shared driveway being large (20’), and suggested all the driveways be the same width (16’) with two foot shoulders (grassed) and there be an apron off the entrance on Barstow Road that is wider than the driveways to accommodate emergency/fire vehicles.

 

There was discussion of the covenants for the open space. It was noted lots #1, #2, and #3 will own a share of Lot #4 and realize the benefit of the open space, but for tax assessment purposes, the open space will be zero value added to the building lots. Per the covenants, if the lot owners do not maintain Lot #4 (mow/brushhog), the town can provide the maintenance and assess the cost to each lot owner. Rick Peterson suggested language be added to the covenants stating any amendments must be reviewed and approved by the town.  Reg Gignoux suggested the term “horticultural use” be added to the covenants to allow wetlands type of gardens in the future. Claude LaPierre suggested language referring to passive recreational activities be added as well. The applicant will take the suggestions to modify the covenants under consideration.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cindy Hall, Barstow Road, asked about trees being planted in the corner of the applicant’s lot to block view of the houses. Mr. Precourt stated the lot owners will likely buffer their lots for privacy purposes. Hilda White objected to trees being planted along Barstow Road and interfering with the existing viewscape.  There was discussion of the tree line along the proposed driveway.  The existing trees and vegetation provide a good buffer for sight and sound as well as privacy. It is assumed the lot owners will likely keep the trees.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the PRD Preliminary Plan application submitted by Kelly View, LLC, et al subject to the following conditions:

1.         Any Final Plan application shall contain detailed information demonstrating how open space will be protected from future development. Options include conservation and/or agricultural easements or other legal mechanisms. If reciprocal covenants are proposed, they may not be amended or terminated with out town review and/or approval.

2.         Any Final Plan application shall contain a 20’ recreation path easement along Barstow Road and Spear Street.

3.         Any Final Plan application shall include all other required information identified in the Final Plan Checklist contained within the Town of Shelburne Subdivision Procedures and Application.

4.         The area of Lot #4 together with areas outside the building envelopes and driveways of lots #1, #2, and #3 shall constitute the open space of the PRD and meet or exceed the requirements of 33% open space.

5.         Any Final Plan application shall contain response to the letter from Steve Vock, dated 8/9/05, and the letter from Jonathan Ashley, dated 8/4/05.

6.         The applicant shall create an apron at the entrance off Barstow Road to accommodate emergency/fire vehicles then narrow the driveway to 16’ wide with two foot grassed shoulders on each side. The apron and driveway shall be reviewed and approved by town staff (Public Works and Fire Department).

7.         Any Final Plan application shall contain information demonstrating the maintenance of the existing vegetation and trees along the easterly and southerly boundaries.

VOTING:  unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

 

Dean Pierce provided copies of the final version of Volume I of the Town Plan. Volume II of the Town Plan and the draft Regional Plan will be covered at the 8/18/05 work session. The Selectboard will review the draft Regional Plan at their 8/13/05 meeting. Planning commissioners are urged to attend the 8/13/05 Selectboard meeting.

 

None.

 

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

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

 

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

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Peg Purdue, Michael Burke, Larry Williams, Peter Richardson, Tom Anderson, Chad Anderson, Ed Fitzpatrick, Ernest Auclair, Mike Anderson, Norm Burnett, Bernie Guillemette, Gerry Guillemette, Margaret Meunier Guillemette, Cecile Guillemette, Roger Guillemette, Thea Platt, Bart Frisbie, Stuart Bennett, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (8/11/05)

3.      Partial Preliminary Plan Review, Michael Anderson, 61 Pond Road (SUB04-10)

4.      Final Plan Review, W.Thomas Anderson, 941 Mt. Philo Road (SUB05-04)

5.      Sketch Plan Review, Catamount/HIS/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road (SUB05-09)

6.      Site Plan Amendment, William Warnock dba Champlain Naturopathic/Raymond & Hilda Hendrickson, 3804 Shelburne Road (SP05-02)

7.      Final Plan Amendment, Boulder Hill Partnership, LLC, Boulder Hill Drive (SUB01-6R2)

8.      Other Business, Correspondence

9.      Adjournment

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

 

 

Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre recused themselves. Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of Chairman. Mike Burke with Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Burke reviewed the site plan for property at 61 Pond Road owned by Michael Anderson, dba API Properties.  Mr. Burke stated the Town of St. George approved the land in St. George as a buildable lot with access through the lot. The location of the town line (boundary line) is reproducible. The property in St. George is separate from the property under discussion in the Town of Shelburne. A high resolution photograph done in 2004 showing the entire parcel and contour work was reviewed. Mr. Burke noted the existing VAST trail on the easterly portion of the property is shown on the site plan as well as an existing trail on the westerly portion (woods road) which continues onto adjacent property.  The woods road/trail shows signs of long term use (accessed by tractor). Other natural features of the site are being identified. This is a possible limestone bluff community on the westerly side of the property.  A conservation lot is being proposed with third party conservation and possibly third party ownership (discussions have been held with UVM due to the close proximity to land owned by the school).  There has been further delineation of the wetlands, continued Mr. Burke. The building envelopes have been tightened up in the area of disturbance and in some cases the “no cut” buffers have been widened.  The right-of-way was moved to minimize disruption of the agricultural lands. An area has been located for a fire pond.  The agricultural easements on Lot #3 are shown on the site plan. Effort has been made to identify surrounding land uses to provide compatibility with the uses to the west and north (wetlands, Shelburne pond, conservation land, operating farm), uses to the south (privately owned and town owned open woodland, privately owned agricultural land), uses to the southeast (golf course), and uses to the east (residences). Other amenities on the property include a deer yard, an area of natural interest, possible limestone bluff community, and second growth forest. Mr. Burke emphasized the design goal of compatibility to minimize conflict with land uses on surrounding parcels. There is a right-of-way used as a woods road access which could be formalized as an access to the properties to the south. The VAST trail could follow this corridor in the winter. Mr. Burke pointed out the buffer created by Lot #7 minimizes conflicts with surrounding uses. There is also a ‘no cut’ zone off the area in conservation.  The building envelope by the golf course has been moved 200’ from the property line. The deed will contain covenants noting the property is adjacent to a golf course. There will be less than 3,000 s.f. of wetlands disturbance on the site. Lot #3 has an agricultural easement, and it is suggested the agricultural use be organic to avoid impact on Shelburne pond; the property does not have a history of fertilizer or pesticide use on it.  It is also suggested a physical barrier, such as fence, be installed to prevent farm animals from straying onto the property. There will be “Right to Farm” language in the deeds. It is felt with the site plan proposed the impact on adjoining property uses and natural features of the parcel are minimized, stressed Mr. Burke.

 

Attorney Ed Fitzpatrick stated covenants for the entire development will outline conserved land, agricultural easements, conservation easements, no-cut zones, reference to the no cut areas pertaining to each lot and the entire development, agricultural use notice and recovery of legal fees if litigation occurs related to the agricultural use. A draft of the Agricultural Use Notice was provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted there will also be some language to address the proximity of the golf course to the houses (similar to “Right to Farm” language). Shelburne’s Town Attorney will review the proposed language in the Notice.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/25/05.  Dean Pierce clarified the Planning Commission needs to determine if the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood before the project can move forward in the review process.  A finding must be stated regarding the proposal being compatible with the surrounding area. If the Planning Commission can not make this finding, then the proposal does not go forward. The Planning Commission can request more information from the applicant if necessary and continue the review.  Mr. Pierce pointed out API now owns the northern piece of property so it does not appear there is a problem with violation of the subdivision bylaw.

 

Fred Schmidt asked about the “multi-function” trail. Mike Burke explained the trailhead is on Pond Road, but people are using the area to dump garbage. The terminus of the trail on Mr. Anderson’s property is at the back of the field toward the golf course (ties into the VAST trail). The trail is 20’ wide which would allow access to the town owned parcel. Hilda White asked if the 20’ wide trail could become a driveway at some point in time. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated there could be language in the deed forbidding utilities which would effectively eliminate the trail becoming a driveway.

 

Hilda White expressed concern about the impact of an organic farm operation on Lot #3 on adjacent farms, noting farms adjacent to certified organic farms must restrict any dispersion of pollen or seed drift onto the organic farmland.  A large separation between adjoining properties is needed with an organic farm operation, and this could be a problem for existing farms in the area.  Ms. White contended an organic agricultural use makes the use incompatible with surrounding uses. Reg Gignoux echoed Ms. White’s concerns. Mike Anderson clarified the point is no pesticides or herbicides will be used on the parcel, and there will be agricultural uses on the land. The term “organic” may be a bit strong in this case. It is likely the agricultural use will be “all natural”, not certified organic, stated Mr. Anderson.  Ms. White suggested language be added to the deed stating the agricultural use will not cause problems with existing farms.  Mr. Fitzpatrick stressed anyone who farms the land will be subject to the same restrictions as the residents.  Fred Schmidt interjected his support for not impacting the existing agricultural activities.  Mr. Guillemette, a local farmer, stated fertilizer is needed to grow hay and herbicide is needed to control weeds.

 

Hilda White asked if the lot in St. George is part of the proposed housing development. Mike Burke stated the density allows only one house on the land in St. George. There will be a total of seven houses between the two parcels (six in Shelburne and one in St. George). Reg Gignoux asked if “Right to Farm” language will be included in the deed for the St. George parcel. Mr. Fitzpatrick confirmed this, adding there will also be language regarding the golf course.

 

Kay Kraushaar commented positively on the efforts made thus far to make the development compatible with surrounding uses, such as moving the road and building envelopes farther away from the farm.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the metal fencing barrier, suggesting there be plantings to create a more visual barrier between the fence and the road. Mike Burke explained the goal is to keep the land open (or looking open). Also, plantings between the fence and the road would be in the town right-of-way.

 

There was discussion of who owns the land other than the building lots. Options include third party ownership (UVM) and conservation easements held by a third party.

 

Gerry Guillemette, adjacent property owner and farmer, asked what will happen to the agricultural land if not used by a farmer. Mike Anderson stated the land will be hayed or brush-hogged to be kept open for agricultural use at some point in time. If a third party can not be found to be responsible for the parcel, then the homeowners association for the development will be charged with maintaining the parcel.

 

Norman Burnett, owner of Rocky Ridge Golf Course, stated his concern about golf balls falling on the lots/hitting houses is alleviated with the changes to the site plan and the proposed covenants. The golf course has been in operation since 1963 and wants to continue. One of the attributes of Rocky Ridge Golf Course is its rural setting. Members enjoy having cows next to the course, but are not opposed to houses though it is not possible to install a 100’ high fence to protect the property line, stated Mr. Burnett.

 

Bernie Guillemette, adjacent property owner and farmer, asked if the Planning Commission is confident the farm is safeguarded by the proposed language in the deeds/covenants.  Fred Schmidt stated the town attorney will render a legal opinion on the language, and the deed/covenants will go with the land.  Mr. Guillemette cited the rejection by neighbors of the proposal from Clark Hinsdale for a farm in Charlotte as an example of farms not co-existing with (newly built) residences.  Ed Fitzpatrick pointed out there was no agricultural notice in the purchase deeds and Mr. Hinsdale changed the operation after people purchased their homes.  The Guillemette family asked for assurance language will be added to the deeds to protect their farm operation. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated if the proposed language is approved by the town attorney, a condition of approval for the proposal could be drafted to mandate the language be included in the deeds. Roger Guillemette expressed concern for the property owners legally changing the deeds at some point in the future.  Mr. Fitzpatrick explained the deeds run with the land and the approval which can not be changed.

 

There was mention of the space between the barn and the proposed fence, and the need for enough room to mow the area and maintain the barn.  Mike Anderson agreed to allow enough room for maintenance on the barn and mowing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson resumed the duties of Chairman.

 

Tom Anderson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Anderson addressed path easements and conservation of 16 acres of meadowland on the eastern portion of his property at 941 Mt. Philo Road.  Lot #1 contains the existing house. Lot #2 is 2.5 acres and a building lot. Lot #3 is 38 acres of open land. The appropriate location for a recreation path is along the north end of the field tying into the Zen Center property (within 20’ of the line), stated Mr. Anderson, suggesting the easement be “floating” until the Paths Committee determines the actual location.  Rick Peterson observed it seems likely for a path to develop along Mt. Philo Road, and asked if there would be any objection to granting space within the 60’ of frontage for a path. Mr. Anderson had no objections.

 

Mr. Anderson explained the proposal to locate a building envelope in the southeast corner of Lot #3, and when the land is put into land use, to keep two acres out of Lot #3 for himself (primary residence). Mr. Anderson suggested there be language in the deed saying Lot #3 may only be subdivided once for the purpose of a primary residence. Language is needed to allow a boundary line adjustment. Lot #3 will be kept in agricultural use (hay, crops, grazing) and in the current use program. Lot #1 has been squared off to eliminate the “finger” portion of Lot #3. Mr. Anderson noted the driveway easement granted to the Hyde property will be eliminated.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/25/05. Dean Pierce mentioned the need to designate a septic system replacement area under the new subdivision rules.  Mr. Anderson stated with the 2002 Homestead Exemption that was filed, a replacement area is not necessary. A “fix it as best you can” permit is issued. Dean Pierce noted the comments from the Fire Chief regarding a dry hydrant. Mr. Anderson stated a dry hydrant will be installed with year round accessibility. Dean Pierce suggested the condition of approval related to the boundary line adjustment be amended to clarify that any boundary line adjustments do not result in additional building lots.

 

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

·        The building envelope for any such building lot carved out of lot #3, said lot having been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit, shall be no more than two acres in size and located in the southeast corner of the meadow located in the eastern half of the project.

·        Language addressing the building envelope on lot #3 shall be added to the deed for lot #3.

·        This provision shall not restrict the Planning Commission approved boundary line adjustments that do not result in the creation of additional building sites or potential building sites.

 

Following brief discussion and with approval from the remaining applicants, the agenda was adjusted to hear the Boulder Hill amendment as the next item of business.

 

Bart Frisbie appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Frisbie explained when the house was built on Lot 33 it was discovered the overhang encroached into the side setback.  If the westerly boundary line is adjusted on a six foot angle to create a triangle, the houses on lots 33 and 34 will be in compliance with setbacks.  Boulder Hill Partnership owns both lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/25/05.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Richardson and Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Richardson explained the proposal involving two land parcels and three existing structures at 5247 Shelburne Road and 11 Falls Road. Shelburne Inn will be renovated to historical restoration and will be a restaurant, retail and office space. The motel will be reconstructed to house 14 residential units (six townhouses and eight flats). The building at 11 Falls Road will remain as is.  The Zoning Board has reviewed the application, and the Design Review Committee is currently reviewing the application. Mr. Richardson discussed moving the curb cut 15’ to the south for a direct connection to the right-of-way to the mobile home park behind Shelburne Inn which will improve the circulation and parking on the site. The Zoning Board granted conditional use approval of the plan showing the curb cut in the existing location with the authorization of staff to approve the plan with the curb cut relocated 15’ as proposed if approval of the relocation is granted by VTrans. Rick Peterson asked if any of the plans favor the Village Plan loop road. Mr. Richardson stated there is no plan to accommodate a loop road. The loop road would eliminate the building at 11 Falls Road.

 

Larry Williams stated the Falls Road building will remain unchanged. Shelburne Inn will stay substantially the same in terms of scale and size. The existing front porch will be replaced with a porch historically compatible to the building (wider columns, new roof with greater slope). The picture windows will be replaced with six-over-six double hung windows. The exterior clapboards will be painted. The slate roof will be repaired. The cedar shake roof over the dining room will be replaced with a standing seam roof. The wing tiers will be removed on the dining room and the wall will be framed out with clapboards. The windows will be replaced by the dining room.  A 10’ x 40’ deck for outdoor seating and dining at the restaurant will be added. The roof over the kitchen area will be replaced and sloped in the other direction.  The windows on the north side of the building will be replaced. An interior second egress from the second floor with a door leading outside will be constructed. Mr. Williams assured the character of the building will be maintained with the new construction.  Regarding the motel, the footprint will remain the same, but the existing deck will be converted to living space. The building will be “bumped out” in four places for garages for some of the units.  New siding will be put on, and the long façade will be broken with architectural treatments. A new roof will be installed.  The Inn is the key building on the site. The motel will be like a carriage house, subordinate to the Inn.  There will be landscaped islands in the parking lot. The stone wall will be removed. Sidewalk along the driveway and Route 7 will be added for pedestrian access. A picket fence along Route 7 with plantings will be added.  The back of the building will have five foot “bump outs” on the first floor for relief of the monotony of the façade and to provide a little more internal living space. On the boundary line with the adjacent property (Bennett), an 8’ high, solid fence will be installed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/25/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Bennett, neighbor, showed his view of the site, noting the more the building blends in and stays neutral, the less impact on him.  Mr. Bennett expressed concern for the level of activity from people living on the site every day compared to the current situation (no activity).  Mr. Bennett pointed out the building and balconies of the units are right next to his property.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bill Warnock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dr. Warnock explained the proposal to lease a portion of the building at 3804 Shelburne Road for his medical practice. The building was previously used as a real estate office. An updated site plan was submitted to the Planning Commission. Dr. Warnock stated his practice (“Awakening Center”) has to be moved due to a mold problem in the building. In the 2,400 s.f. building at 3804 Shelburne Road, the practice will occupy 1,600 s.f. There is an existing apartment on the top level of the split level building which will remain. The bottom portion of the building will be used for the medical practice.  There was discussion of parking. Dean Pierce noted the regulations require two spaces for the residential use (apartment) and eight spaces for the office use. Dr. Warnock noted there are nine parking spaces on the site currently. The office employs one full time administrator and two part-time doctors on alternating schedules.  Patients are seen by appointment one at a time.  The basement space of the building will be used for storage and lab space. The garage space will be the office.  A loading area is not needed. Deliveries are by UPS two to three times per week.  The practice does not generate enough refuse to fill a dumpster. No additional landscaping is proposed at this time.  There is existing lighting in the parking lot. It was noted the lighting must comply with the town’s standards.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 8/25/05.  Dean Pierce suggested information be added to the site plan to accurately reflect the current situation, including the revision date and who made the changes, and the names of the adjacent property owners.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

Peg Purdue, adjacent property owner, noted changes to the site due to the Route 7 construction project need to be shown on the site plan.  Also, the positioning of the houses is not correct as shown.  Ms. Purdue expressed concern about the lack of screening, noting the light from the parking lot spills over into her back yard. It was mentioned there is a gap in the cedar hedge made by Mr. Hendrickson when he owned both parcels. Ms. Purdue requested screening to block the light and buffer the traffic from the medical practice.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

None.

 

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

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

 

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