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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Larry Williams, Peter Richardson, David Webster, Stephen Vock, Stuart Bennett, Alec Webb, Gwen Webster, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Steve Selin, Scott Prom, Dave Marshall, Douglas Hyde, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (8/25/05)

3.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road  (DR05-18)

4.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road/11 Falls Road (SUB05-09)

5.      PUD Site Plan Amendment and Design Review, Shelburne Farms, 1611 Harbor Road (SUB05-10)

6.      Final Plan Amendment, Raymond and Martha Sadler, 1A & 192 Adirondack Drive (SUB92-10R1)

7.      Site Plan Review and Final Plan Review, Meach Cove Real Estate Trust/Kenneth Albert, parcel west of Route 7 & south of Bostwick Road (SUB04-09)

8.      Final Plan Review, Douglas G. Hyde, 50 & 943 Mt. Philo Road (SUB05-06)

9.      Rules of Procedures – Conflict of Interest Policy

10.  Planning Grant Application

11.  Other Business, Correspondence

12.  Adjournment

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

 

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Richardson reported the application is currently under review by the Design Review Committee. The redesign of the condominiums in the motel structure and more detail on the porch on the inn as well as the railings in front of the proposed deck for the restaurant are being discussed. The Planning Commission received a schematic showing what was discussed at the design review meeting.  Mr. Richardson requested the Planning Commission grant design review approval plus approval for repair of existing conditions this fall, including repair and rebuilding of the roof in back of the inn, rebuilding the porch, and beginning construction of the deck. There was discussion of procedure (i.e. Design Review Committee submits recommendations on applications to the Planning Commission for action) and that the request from the applicant pertains to the inn, not the motel. It was noted the Design Review Committee wants more detail on the motel (this has been submitted by the applicant) before making a recommendation on the motel. Rick Peterson cautioned that if design review approval is granted by the Planning Commission for some of the items, the items could be changed under site plan review and the applicant will have to “undo” what was done.  The applicant acknowledged the risk, but wanted to continue forward with the project.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05.  Dean Pierce reviewed specific items to be modified at the inn as recommended by the Design Review Committee including the window on the east side, the shed roof, a new front door, the front porch handrail, the porch and dining room roof, the handrail for the outdoor dining porch, and porch flooring.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Richardson explained there are two site plans, “Concept Plan B” showing existing traffic circulation and curb cut, and “Concept Plan A” showing the curb cut moved 15’ to the south with approval from VTrans. Concept Plan A is the preferred plan.  The Zoning Board agreed to both plans and authorized staff to review Concept Plan A (if VTrans agrees to move the curb cut) to determine if further review by the Zoning Board is needed.  The principle difference between the plans is a better point of access with Plan A because there would be alignment with the access to the mobile home park. In addition with Plan A, parking spaces are added by the inn. The Planning Commission received a parking analysis for the property. There are 30 parking spaces for the residential units (two spaces per unit including garage space and one parking space behind the building on Falls Road). If all the uses in the inn were active simultaneously, 75 parking spaces would be needed. There are additional parking spaces available in the neighborhood (26 spaces within 500’ of the inn). The uses in the building will not overlap. The office and retail uses are active during the day and the restaurant will be serving in the evenings during the week.  With Plan B there are 63 parking spaces. There are 33 spaces available in the evening to serve the restaurant. The maximum requirement for an 80 seat restaurant is 40 parking spaces. Plan A offers 14 additional parking spaces. Mr. Richardson reviewed available off-site parking in the area, including 14 parking spaces on the west side of Falls Road,  five spaces on the east  side of Falls Road, and seven spaces on Harbor Road west of the intersection. There is more parking than needed, assured Mr. Richardson, and should the restaurant become wildly successful and more parking is needed, the coffee shop would be approached for space. Rick Peterson pointed out some of the off-site parking may be on private property (not in the town right-of-way) so permission would be needed from the property owner to use the spaces.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05. Rick Peterson confirmed the traffic study will be forwarded to the CCMPO for review. Hilda White expressed concern about the parking for the site, especially if Plan B is the final plan.

 

Dean Pierce noted receipt of a memo from the Public Works Director regarding the application not showing adequate detail on water and sewer items, and clarified that at sketch plan review, these details are not required.  Mr. Pierce stated no comments from the town highway department were received on the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gwen Webster, resident, noted parking is very limited in the area or not available when there are functions at the craft school or the area restaurant (functions occur every two or three weeks).  Peter Richardson pointed out he has 33 parking spaces on-site of the required 40 parking spaces for the restaurant at the inn.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Alec Webb appeared on behalf of the application.  Rick Peterson recused himself. Fred Schmidt assumed the duties of Chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Alec Webb explained the Board of Directors for Shelburne Farms is always searching for renewable energy resources. Request is being made for a wind measuring device to be installed to determine if wind can be used as a renewable energy resource on the site and to determine the aesthetic impact of the device. New construction is contained within developed areas on the site to conserve the landscape. After review of several sites, Shelburne Farms decided the knoll east of the courtyard for the breeding barn complex might be a possibility. A photograph of the 100’ high, six inch wide test tower was shown.  Mr. Webb noted Vermont Technical College is installing the towers in potential wind locations as part of their curriculum.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05.  Dean Pierce reported the Shelburne Museum indicated no objection to the project. The chosen location does not fall into areas noted on the Significant Views Map (some of the other locations did). The requested device is temporary (installed for up to 12 months), but if the test is successful, the Planning Commission may see an application for a permanent tower.  Hilda White expressed concern about aesthetics, noting one temporary tower is not an issue, but a wind farm in the future may be. Ms. White suggested solar panels be tested instead. Alec Webb noted the cost/benefits of wind and solar will be evaluated.  Fred Schmidt observed the test tower will determine if area residents can view the tower. Tucker Holland asked about the amount of energy wanted from the wind tower. Alec Webb stated the goal is to power the farm with renewable sources. At some point in the future, the old dairy barn will be converted to an educational center. The power lines through the complex are being put underground.

 

There was discussion of doing a site visit. Fred Schmidt spoke strongly in favor of doing a site visit.

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Vock reviewed the property on Shelburne Farms and the proposed accessory buildings tucked into the trees over the ridge. The accessory buildings will not be visible. The property owner has a long term lease of the five acre parcel which is internal to his surrounding 17.23 acres. The proposed structures will be built on the leased land.  A boundary line adjustment is needed so the accessory structures will comply with setback requirements. Without a boundary line adjustment, the buildings will have to be moved westerly and will be visible.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05. Hilda White asked how many buildings are allowed on a lot. Dean Pierce stated normally one primary use, such as a residence, is allowed per lot, but accessory uses and accessory buildings are allowed. The number of buildings is also controlled by the percentage of lot coverage.  Steve Vock mentioned Shelburne has regulations restricting multiple residences on a lot; the proposal is more like a farm where there are accessory buildings to the main farmhouse.

 

Dean Pierce asked about a water line easement. Steve Vock stated there is an easement on the easterly side of the property. There is also an electrical line. The proposed buildings avoid both utilities. Dig Safe was contacted.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Alec Webb stated Shelburne Farms has no problem with the proposed buildings. The barns buffer the residential use from the farm use.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

Ken Albert, Steve Selin, Scott Prom, and Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Selin reviewed the landscape and lighting plans. The prime landscape element is the agricultural portion of the application. There will be five acres of grapes planted on the site parallel to the road. There is the possibility of an outbuilding (this is shown on the plan), but the structure will not be built in this phase of the project. Site lighting will be low level. The parking lot will have full cut-off downward light bollards (visitors will mainly be coming to the site during daytime hours so low level lighting is adequate). There will be a hanging light in the recessed archway on the building and two ground lights (tilted upwards) in front of the building. There will be sconces on the side of the building. The south terrace will have wall lights and there will be hanging lights in the trellis. On the back of the building there will be sconces and wall lights. There will be 30 watt ‘moon lighting’ in the Honey Locust trees and sculpture garden by the building. Also in the sculpture garden will be “up lights” to gently illuminate the sculpture. There will be no spot lights.  In the ceiling of the 20’ loading dock there is a work light.  The facility closes at 5 p.m. and the lights, except minor security lights, will be off at that time.  Two stone pillars will mark the entrance to the site. The parking lot and driveway will be crushed stone to maintain a rural, farm feeling. Pavers will be used by the building and stone dust will be used in the garden area. A flowering hedge will be planted. The existing vegetation will be trimmed and pruned. Mr. Selin listed other plantings to be added to the site, noting the lilacs on the site plan are not included in the plantings. There will be a sign out in front of the building. The sign will conform to the zoning regulations.  The vineyard will have walkways at the perimeter. The fence shown in the rendering has been replaced with a hedge row. The hedge will buffer the vines from road salt.

 

Ken Albert reviewed hours of operation (10 a.m. to 5 p.m.). A low level motion light in the parking lot will be installed. Traffic generation is estimated at 100 trips per day during the summer and fall peak times, with 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. being the peak visiting time. A typical visit is less than 30 minutes. Traffic estimates were derived from statistics for an 8,000 case winery in the Finger Lakes region of New York State (100 trips/day in the peak season; 10 trips/day in the winter).  Mr. Albert stated his vineyard should yield 5,000 cases of wine. The parking lot will hold 25 cars. There is an area for overflow parking and to handle tour buses.  There will be up to six employees on the site.  Medium to large trucks or possibly tractor trailers will be coming to the site on occasion. The delivery history for the past year is four shipments of grapes in medium trucks and four shipments of supplies (bottles and such). Mr. Albert said the number of deliveries could increase as the operation grows, but there will not be daily deliveries to the site. Product (grapes) is delivered to the site in the fall from off site using large delivery trucks. Most of the retail sales will be on-site. Wholesale sales occur off-site and an SUV type vehicle is used.  Regarding sight distance and a curb cut on Route 7, VTrans measured the sight distances to the north and south on Route 7, and the minimum safe sight distance is exceeded. Detailed drawings for the curb cut have been submitted to VTrans for final review.

 

Steve Vock reviewed the sewer line connection across the street as a future connection, noting this is not a firm arrangement at this time.  Rick Peterson stated the Public Works Director submitted a letter pertaining to the wastewater system and the water line.  Ken Albert noted the Fire Chief indicated a fire hydrant is not necessary.  Steve Vock mentioned the abandoned sewer line on the westerly side of Route 7. The line will be used if possible to avoid making the connection across Route 7. The wastewater system will have clean outs. A small force main will be installed. There are specifications for testing. All technical items will be addressed by final review, assured Mr. Vock.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05.  Dean Pierce noted receipt of letters from Chris Senesac, Barb Mann, and Bob Blair regarding the application. The applicant confirmed the landscape plan shows the planting species, except for lilacs which will not be planted.  The site plan also shows the location and types of lighting to be installed. A finalized lighting plan will be submitted. The building will be wood, not metal. The style resembles a Shelburne Farms building. The location of the building is in the least desirable area for agricultural activity. The remainder of the land is planted or in agricultural use.

 

Dean Pierce asked about the color of the crushed stone to be used in the parking lot.  Mr. Selin stated the ½ inch crushed stone will be either soft grey or reddish brown in color. Mr. Pierce commented that subjectively the amount of parking proposed by the applicant appears adequate, but it would be best to base the number of parking spaces on an objective standard (such as square footage) if possible.

 

Rick Peterson asked if there is any response to the letter from Chris Senesac, dated 9/8/05. Ken Albert stated the Senesac residence is not adjacent to the property. The operation is 2,000’ from any residences on Bostwick Road. It was noted the letters from Barb Mann and Bob and Erma Blair are in support of the application. Mr. Albert also mentioned letters from Alec Webb and Steve Waltien in support of the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dave Marshall and Doug Hyde appeared on behalf of the application. Fred Schmidt recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dave Marshall explained a recreation path easement along Mt. Philo Road has been added to the site plan. The wastewater disposal system has been fine tuned for the permit. The applicant has decided to revise the configuration of lot #2 to provide the existing homestead with more land and better follow the natural contours of the land.  Mr. Marshall marked the revised boundary line between lot 2 and lot 3 on the site plan. Doug Hyde was amenable to a temporary hold on further subdivision of lot #3 for a period of 10 years.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 9/8/05.  Dean Pierce reported the recommendation to pursue another easement for an east-west path in the northerly portion of the property was withdrawn by the Paths Committee. The Natural Resources Committee recommends prohibiting further subdivision of any of the lots and avoiding the need for additional curb cuts. The Public Works Director had no comments on the project.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Planning Commission received a draft copy of interim rules of procedure for the Planning Commission, dated September, 2005.  Hilda White felt the Planning Commission already adheres to a standard (as an example, members recuse themselves when necessary). Dean Pierce explained changes to state statute are driving the need for the rules of procedure. There is a state requirement to have rules of procedure and a conflict of interest policy in place and effective 9/1/05.  There was discussion of the rule regarding Ex Parte Communication which appears as written to not allow the commissioners to speak to anyone outside of Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission will discuss the rules of procedure at a future date.

 

 

There was discussion of the definition of “substantial regional impact”. Dean Pierce noted 100 units in an urban area, 30 units in a suburban/village area, or 10 units in a rural area is the threshold for Regional Planning Commission review.  The regional land use map showing metropolitan areas, enterprise areas, village areas, and rural areas is different from the Shelburne town map showing growth areas.  The Planning Commission may need to decide whether to expand the town into the metropolitan 2 area (as defined in the regional land use map). If so, this will take up rural area as designated in the Shelburne Town Plan.  The Planning Commission will provide feedback on the Regional Plan.

 

Work session with Mike Munson to update the town zoning regulations is scheduled on 9/15/05.

 

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (5-0) [Fred Schmidt not present for vote]; motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.

 

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