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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Gwen Webster, David Webster, Al Dunbar, Mary Dunbar, JoAnne Precourt, Ed Precourt, Nora Senecal-Albrecht, Cindy and Stanton Hall, Joe Segale, Steve Vock, Peter Richardson, Larry Williams, Mark Hamlin, Ronald Meilleur, Victor Meilleur, Dana Farley, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (9/22/05)

3.      Design Review, Harbor Meadows Condominium Association/Burlington Community Land Trust, 14-36 McCabe Circle (DR05-26)

4.      Design Review, Clayton Investments, Inc./Weiliff, Inc. (d/b/a Bistro Sauce), 97 Falls Road (DR05-25)

5.      Final Plan Review, Kelly View, LLC/Edward&JoAnne Precourt/Kevin&Elaine Cieplicki, 2024 Spear Street, 20 Westview Drive, and 37 Barstow Road (SUB05-03)

6.      Design Review and Preliminary Plan Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road and 11 Falls Road (SUB05-09)

7.      Warning of Town Plan Public Hearing

8.      Other Business, Correspondence

9.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the 9/22/05 minutes with the following corrections:

Page 4, Travelodge, Applicant Comments, 2^nd sentence – change to read: “A strip of land ranging in size from six feet on the southern end up to eight feet on the northern end was claimed by the road construction project.”;

Page 8, Item #9, Development Review Procedures, 2^nd sentence – after the words “approval has conditions” replace the remainder of the sentence with: “they are deemed advisory and the preliminary plan should be warned for public hearing if it complies with the preliminary plat checklist”.

VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

It was noted with regard to the Econologe application and as recorded in the September 22, 2005 minutes (Page 3, Staff Report, 2^nd paragraph), the Planning Commission has learned that what was confirmed with respect to the second driveway and what the applicant believed to be the case is not so and the applicant will be coming forth with a corrected application.

 

Chairman Peterson announced the design review applications by Harbor Meadows and Clayton Investments have been postponed until October 27, 2005.

 

Ed Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Ed Precourt reviewed the conditions listed in the minutes of 8/11/05, confirming there are restrictions to keep open space and provide a 20’ wide recreation path, the requirement for 33% common land has been met, the driveway off Barstow Road has been widened at the entrance (then tapers to 12’ wide), the trees on the back border and on the north side will be protected from clear cutting. The information is designated on the site plan.  Regarding the water line, the size of the pipe (one inch or inch and a quarter) is being confirmed with the Public Works Department. The nearby hydrant must be flow tested, but it is anticipated the one inch line will be increased to one and a quarter inches. The distance from Westview Drive to Spear Street is less than 500’ so an additional hydrant is not needed. Regarding the suggestion for clean-outs every 100’ for the septic system, it is felt this is not needed, but a clean-out in the middle of the line (this will be marked) is reasonable. The force main in the right-of-way from the Spear Street lot may require ditch reconstruction. The Planning Commission wanted the force main by the road versus across the lot, but the line can not be pushed inward due to wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit which will also preserve open space. The proposed right turn lane on Barstow Road will impact the Cieplicki driveway, but there is room to add the lane if and when necessary.  The items in the letter from Civil Engineering Associates, dated 8/9/05, have been addressed. A note has been added to the plans that work will be done to Shelburne’s public works standards. Detail relative to road construction is shown on the site plan. Items in the letter from Jonathan Ashley, dated August 4, 2005, have been addressed. A perk test summary and leach field base design are shown on the plan set.

 

Rick Peterson referred to the draft covenants regarding open space submitted by the applicant, noting the Town Attorney will review the language.  It should be clear in the covenants that the common area (lot #4) can not join with lots 1, 2, or 3. Suggested wording includes “…one third interest in Lot #4 must travel with Lot #4”.  Also, Lot #4 must be mowed or brush hogged at least annually. Mr. Peterson observed it might be more appropriate for the Planning Commission to make the decision on landscaping and removal of topsoil, rather than the Selectboard.

 

There was discussion of the 20’ wide recreation easement extending to the Cieplicki lot which is part of the PRD.  Mr. Precourt pointed out there is an existing guardrail on Spear Street by the Cieplicki lot. Also, the house is currently under contract and the recreation pathway is a new item not included in the sales description.  Claude LaPierre felt the issue should have been brought to the applicant’s attention earlier in the process.  Rick Peterson asked if the applicant would be amenable to having a condition saying a 20’ wide recreation path right-of-way along the property on Spear Street will be considered.  Mr. Precourt said he will ask the property owner. It was noted a 10’ wide path parallel to the guardrails along the road would fit in the town right-of-way.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if the sewer pipe in the ditch will present a problem. The applicant stated the line will remain where it was proposed and the ditch will have to be restored to its current condition.  A ditch will be created on Barstow Road along with some re-ditching south of the Spear Street driveway.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the letter from the Halls suggesting landscaping.  Mr. Precourt said he was not planning to do the landscaping, but will pass the recommendation for plantings/screening on to the buyers. It is assumed they will want to buffer their houses for privacy.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 10/13/05. Dean Pierce requested a copy of the permit from the Army Corps of Engineers from the applicant. Mr. Pierce mentioned the right turn lane by the Cieplicki house, noting the Public Works Director (Bernie Gagnon) feels relocation of the driveway to the east would be helpful in the design of the right turn lane.  Following further discussion of the turn lane, the Planning Commission felt there are other mechanisms to pursue and the Planning Commission does not have to mandate relocation of the driveway for the turn lane.  Dean Pierce also mentioned the need for a revocable license from the Selectboard for the septic disposal system. The Selectboard indicated their approval is contingent upon the action of the Planning Commission. Jonathan Ashley did send a letter confirming the septic design issues have been addressed by the applicant.

 

Stanton Hall, Barstow Road, spoke in support of the development, but suggested that screening on the northern portion of the property be part of the sales agreement. To preserve the open land ambiance, it is necessary to go beyond buffering around the houses. A line of semi- or non-deciduous trees should be planted so surrounding property owners see trees and not lights from houses.

 

There were no further comments.  Chairman Peterson declared the evidentiary portion of the hearing closed.

 

MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to approve the final plan application submitted by Kelly View, LLC, et al, for 2024 Spear Street, 20 Westview Drive, and 37 Barstow Road subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Prior to filing a mylar, plans shall be revised to address comments received from the Shelburne Public Works Director in a memo, dated October 5, 2005.

2.                  Prior to filing a mylar, the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney, and these legal documents are to include an access easement for the benefit of Lot #2, sewage disposal easements for the benefit of all lots, deed language addressing the protection of existing vegetation, a pedestrian path easement, and restrictive covenants governing use and maintenance of Lot #4.

3.                  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 owners of the approval and conditions.

4.                  The applicant shall consider adding to the final plan a recreation path easement on the easterly side of Spear Street on the Cieplicki lot of up to 20’ in width.

VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

Peter Richardson, Larry Williams, Steve Vock, Mark Hamlin, and Joe Segale appeared on behalf of the applications. Mr. Richardson noted outstanding design review issues will be revisited by the Design Review Committee once preliminary plan review is complete. The picket fence and some light fixtures have been eliminated and some plantings reorganized. The handicap access (ramp) will wrap around the building. The Design Review Committee felt some items (relative to color choices and such) would be easier to decide after some progress on the project.

 

[Note: the design review and preliminary plan applications were discussed in concert. Comments/discussion from the applicant, Planning Commission, staff and public occurred throughout the discussion of the applications, but are mainly recorded under the appropriate headings below.]

 

Mr. Richardson reviewed issues with the site plan concepts, including the curb cut on Route 7 and the right-of-way/access to the mobile home park, the relationship of the site plan to the subdivision bylaws and public works specifications (relative to the southern boundary of the inn property), pedestrian circulation, location of the cluster of mailboxes (Post Office has approved the proposed location), parking waiver, perimeter screening, traffic, sewage allocation, and school/recreation impact fees.  There was lengthy discussion of the southern boundary of the inn. There is a 16’ wide finger shaped portion of land owned by the mobile home park and a right-of-way to Route 7. The inn property has been surveyed by Civil Engineering Associates and the boundaries and rights-of-way were found to be correct. There is a roadway traversing the site to the mobile home park which has migrated slightly to the north. It is felt this situation can be resolved by changing the easement, but property boundary disputes should be settled in court, not by the Planning Commission, stated the applicant. The survey that was done is signed by a licensed surveyor.  The access with the existing curb cut (known as “Plan B”) is not ideal. Preliminary approval has been received from VTrans to move the curb cut 15’ to the south to access the property and make the access to the mobile home park directly to the park. This approach is known as “Plan A”. Plan A also allows for additional parking on the inn property.

 

Steve Vock gave a brief history of the survey results, noting 20 years ago a survey was done of the inn property and the original survey was reconfirmed by CEA. The dimensions are slightly off because with today’s technology measurements are more accurate (off only by inches). The discrepancies being referred to depend on the town tax map and memory, both of which are not reliable. The road to the mobile home park was not built specifically in the right-of-way, but it has been used over the years in its present location. Mr. Vock stated Plan A shows the opportunity to consolidate two driveways to the benefit of both property owners, and it is the only opportunity to increase the accessway to the mobile home park (which is presently only 16’ wide).  Rick Peterson mention a letter in dispute of the boundaries (saying it is 10’ to 17’ farther to the north) citing seven sources of support. Mr. Vock reiterated the original survey concurs with the current survey. The original boundary markers were found in the field.  Dana Farley, representing Marv Thomas, owner of the mobile home park, agreed there are boundary issues to be settled in court. David Webster noted the person who owned 11 Falls Road also owned the mobile home park.

 

Mr. Vock stated the Fire Chief is comfortable with the site plan, but suggested there be a hydrant with connections in the island (in the parking lot). The hydrant has been stubbed for future extensions.

 

An alternate plan for access to the inn parcel if the 16’ boundary issue is not resolved was described (known as Option A-1).  Some parking will be lost with Option A-1 and the tree on the corner will have to be removed. It was noted Option A-1 is a cross between Plan A which yields 78 parking spaces and Plan B which yields 63 parking spaces. Option A-1 provides 70 on-site parking spaces.  Option A-1 is simply improving the way the property is accessed presently. There is sidewalk to the island in the parking lot and a crosswalk on the southern side of the intersection. There is also some sidewalk on the east side of Falls Road, but pedestrian circulation in the area does need to be evaluated regardless of the project (this is a town issue). The best and safest access for vehicles and pedestrians in the area under the control of the inn property is what is being addressed. A fire truck through the parking lot has been modeled to confirm there is enough space for circulation.

 

Joe Segale reviewed traffic issues with the project consisting of 14 condominium units, one apartment, one restaurant, and 10,400 s.f. of retail/office space. The project will generate 57 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour and 25 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, stated Mr. Segale. Per the state standard, 75 vehicles per hour is the threshold for a traffic study.  Traffic figures were projected out to 2010, and current school traffic, traffic resulting from school expansion, traffic from the Blodgett development, and traffic from the Route 7 widening project were considered. The analysis included removing left turn movements from Falls Road. Vehicles can stack on-site. The area is not considered a high crash location. Based on all the data, the project will not cause unsafe traffic or congestion conditions, reported Mr. Segale.  There was discussion of the queuing that occurs in the morning and afternoon from school traffic, and that cars from the inn property will not be able to get in the left turn lane to go south on Route 7 with the proposal. Reg Gignoux felt with all the (re)development going on in the village area, more thought is needed on the proposal. Mr. Gignoux opined the proposal is not imaginative and does not solve the problem in the area. Traffic in the village is bad at certain times of the day and there has to be a solution.  Rick Peterson asked if cars stacked on-site will interfere with entry to the inn. Mr. Segale stated queues have been projected to be one or two vehicles, and there is opportunity to clear the queue. It was noted internal circulation could adapt to changes to the corner area. Reg Gignoux interjected clearing the queue would only be due to an individual’s desire to be civil to another.  Steve Vock suggested a condition of approval include the directive to participate in realignment when it is deemed necessary.  Reg Gignoux conceded traffic movement/congestion in the area is the town’s problem, created in the aggregate not by one individual project. Mr. Gignoux suggested the crosswalk be moved to allow three or four cars to stack in a line.

 

There was discussion of the 16’ finger of land and right-of-way becoming a town road (public road). Peter Richardson observed to build a loop road would be very expensive, require cooperation from various property owners, and the building at 11 Falls Road would have to be removed. Larry Williams noted there was not much support for a loop road among the property owners. Reg Gignoux stated the town needs to work with the state to resolve the problems in the area. (The applicant does not want to be held up by these conversations.) Mr. Gignoux asked if the access on the north of the property could be used. Steve Vock stated VTrans will not allow this. VTrans wants to control accesses and encourage left turns through a controlled location. Rick Peterson mentioned having right turn only egress controlled with signs. Mr. Richardson stated this is still being discussed with VTrans. It was noted per the letter from Susan Smichenko, there is agreement the Fall Road drive should be an exit only. Signs will be posted to deter people from entering at Falls Road. Mr. Richardson pointed out the land is not theirs in terms of regulating with signs. Joe Segale described a splitter island design (physical barrier) to allow right turn entry. Traffic circulation does have to be managed.

 

It was noted VTrans is against have two curb cuts on Route 7 for the property, and 30 trips are generated by the mobile home park.  It was also noted that a crosswalk and sidewalk are in the plan for consideration, and off-site parking is in place in addition to on-site parking.   Dean Pierce asked if additional signals at the intersection and phasing were considered in the traffic analysis. Mr. Segale explained the analysis assumed optimizing the existing timings on the traffic lights. Priority should be given to traffic on Route 7 and Falls Road. There could be some delay for traffic exiting the site.  The queue projections do not show the intersection becoming “clogged”. Cars can queue in the parking lot.  Signs directing that the entry way remain unblocked and striping on the pavement can be done.

 

Peter Richardson mentioned the request for a parking waiver since it has been shown there is adequate parking on-site to serve the needs of the property (30 spaces for residential and 40 spaces for restaurant/office/retail uses) based on two spaces for each residential unit, one space for the apartment at 11 Falls Road, and 40 spaces for the uses in the inn (the uses have demands that are not overlapping). The 80-seat restaurant requires a maximum of 40 parking spaces, but the restaurant will only be open for dinner and brunch on Sundays so the spaces would be available for use during the work day hours by the retail/office space users.  If there are changes, continued Mr. Richardson, approval will be sought from the Planning Commission. There are also 30 parking spaces within 500’ of the site and spaces within 300’ of the inn available in the evening hours. It is acknowledged there may be special events when there is greater demand for parking. Larry Williams calculated with the total of what is required for parking and what is available within 300’ of the property, the numbers meet the standard.

 

Mark Hamlin reviewed the landscape plan. There will be lawn and a simple planting treatment in the front of the inn building. A wrap around perennial hedge will be planted once the porch is rebuilt. The existing large Maple trees will remain and understory plantings (flowering evergreens) will be planted underneath. The parking lot will contain a planted island (shade tree and perennials). The trash area will be screened with seven foot high cedar trees. The walkway and main entrance will be lined with planted perennials. There will be plantings around the mailboxes.  There will be a fence for screening between the inn and the Bennett property.  Dean Pierce mentioned the landscape plan needs to be revised to reflect the removal of tree(s) suggested by the Fire Chief.

 

Steve Vock reviewed the sewer needs for the site. Design loadings and readings when the inn was in full use are being reviewed. Rick Peterson noted any approval would be conditioned on securing sewer allocation for the site.

 

Peter Richardson stated school and recreation impact fees will be paid, but it is not felt there will be substantial impact on schools from the development. The condominiums are two and three bedroom units. It is expected young professionals and “empty nesters” will be the occupants.  There was discussion of phasing the proposal. Dean Pierce confirmed a large number of children are not anticipated with the types of units as presented.

 

Rick Peterson asked about putting the utilities underground. Larry Williams stated the electric power (new service to building) will be underground as well as the new water service, sewer service, telephone service, and gas service. It was noted the water, sewer and electric lines to the mobile home park are underground.

 

The Planning Commission received staff reports on the design review and preliminary plan applications, dated 10/13/05.

 

Dana Farley on behalf of Marv and Sue Thomas, owners of the 22 acre parcel abutting the Shelburne Inn to the east, expressed concern about access. Currently, of the 22 acres, six acres are developed with single family and cottage units, and 16 acres remain open. A proposal for development will come forth eventually. The Thomas’ land is currently served by a pre-existing 16’ wide access which is “grandfathered”. Further development is not possible with the current access. The Planning Commission is encouraged at this juncture to do some future planning for the town to enable the Thomas property to be accessed in the future. The property owner (Thomas) requests as part of the approval that there be a condition to allow more time to talk with the Shelburne Inn owners, Dean Pierce, and surrounding landowners regarding access by widening the existing right-of-way or an alternate means of access.

 

Larry Williams noted when the mobile home park was first put on the market and offered by Gregg Beldock (offer over $1 million), it was clear there would be further development of the property based on the price, and further development would need a wider accessway. The Planning Commission is urged to not provide Mr. Beldock with the leverage he is seeking, stated Mr. Williams.  Reg Gignoux suggested the space and character of the neighborhood in the mobile home park be reviewed.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, addressed the issue of off-site parking, noting people park on Falls Road on a weekly basis in the evening, and parking across Route 7 is not safe since there presently is no safe way to cross Route 7 at night.  Regarding on-site parking, the applicant needs to provide employee parking. It was noted the zoning regulations take into account parking for employees in the parking requirement.  Shelburne’s regulations use the number of seats in a restaurant to determine parking which includes employee parking (the formula is one parking space for every two seats in the restaurant).  Dean Pierce observed the proposal is not adding pavement (parking) which is in accordance with the town plan. Pedestrian circulation is part of the plan, and relying on parking spaces farther from the site emphasizes the importance of pedestrian connections. The inn is located in a village setting which may encourage people to walk to the site, rather than drive.

 

Marge Sharp, Shelburne News, asked about deliveries to the site. Mr. Richardson stated the loading facility is the walkway. According to the restaurateur, there will be one delivery truck in the morning hours.  Deliveries for the retail space will be through the entry on the porch. David Webster noted a tractor trailer truck may deliver items to the restaurant on occasion.

 

Reg Gignoux reiterated his position that a better understanding of traffic in the area from the town’s point of view is needed before he can vote on the proposal. Mr. Gignoux acknowledged the applicant is not the cause of the traffic problems, but adds to it incrementally. The town needs to look at the intersection thoroughly, and it is worth taking some extra time to do that by hiring a traffic consultant, for example. Kay Kraushaar pointed out moving the application forward does not preclude making a grand plan and having the applicant adapt to that plan. Reg Gignoux said he would like information from VTrans, including when the signalized crosswalks for the intersection are to be installed.  Dean Pierce reviewed the standards under which the project is being reviewed (R-PUD) where a R-PUD is subject to requirements with regard to traffic so the community is not unduly affected, there is maximum safety of vehicular and pedestrian circulation on-site, between sites, and on adjacent roads, the proposal is in accordance with the standards to provide pedestrian safety and convenience, and there is not unreasonable highway or unsafe conditions.  There was agreement by a majority of the Planning Commission that the intersection needs to be addressed, but the problems are a result of other projects. The current proposal according to a traffic engineer will not add to the problem at the intersection. Rick Peterson observed it is not known what options have not been explored and if the proposal offers the best option. There is concern with ingress/egress from the site.

 

Tucker Holland asked if VTrans expressed a preference for the access (northerly access or southerly access). The applicant indicated VTrans was not invited to give an opinion. Joe Segale, traffic engineer, stated VTrans likely would not support the northerly access because of the residences and the jug handle created to access the mobile home park. The southerly access can not be closed because of the right-of-way.  Tucker Holland observed approving the application may serve to pressure VTrans into action on the intersection, but there may be no harm in postponing a decision and requesting an answer from VTrans on their plans for the roadway. Peter Richardson pointed out it is not a two week endeavor to get a determination of what VTrans is going to do with the intersection. Effort is continually being made to find a solution for the intersection.  David Webster noted the applicant does not have control on the Route 7 intersection, and the problem has been there for a long time. If the inn were to be reopened as an inn, the problem would still exist.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the schedule for optimizing the intersection (related to the Blodgett development). Dean Pierce recalled the time frame to be January, 2006, but there have been requests for extensions.

 

There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson declared the evidentiary portion of the hearing closed.

 

There was further discussion of the fairness of delaying the application for work to be done by VTrans.

 

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to approve the design review application submitted by Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC for a mixed use redevelopment planned unit development (R-PUD) involving two parcels northeast of the intersection of Falls Road and Shelburne Road consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following conditions:

1.      The approval authorizes changes to the site not encompassed in the design review approval granted by the Planning Commission on 9/9/05, except that the following specific items are not approved and must to the extent they are retained in the plan be reviewed by the HP&DRC at a future date:

·        Design, color, and location of the picket fence in front of the inn and the associated plantings;

·        Design and location of free-standing light fixtures;

·        Design of front entrance doors to the residential units;

·        Color of the siding and roof shingles of the residential units;

·        Design of the iron front porch railing to the inn.

2.      Authorization of the design review approval prior to any final approval of the proposed R-PUD shall not preclude the Planning Commission from revisiting design review issues as part of the Preliminary Plan and Final Plan review processes.

3.      Approval shall not extend to the construction of the new handicapped access ramp located on the north side of the inn which shall be addressed as part of the site plan review process for the project.

4.      The design review approval shall be consistent with the conditions contained in the HP&DRC motion recommending approval as summarized on Page 4 of the staff report on the application drafted by the Town Planner, dated 10/13/05, including:

“The HP&DRC voted to recommend approval of Drawings A-402 and A-403 and the site plan subject to several conditions:

1.      It is recommended that the roof shingles be specified as architectural grade on the drawings.

2.      The applicant may replace the rear sliding doors with atrium style hinged doors.

3.      The paired and triple gauged windows can be factory mulled, and the windows will be simulated divided light with muntins between the glass.

4.      The 8’ board fence along the northern property line as previously submitted on Drawing L1.0 is approved and may be either natural or painted white.”

VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to approve the Preliminary Plan submitted by Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC for property at 5247 Shelburne Road and 11 Falls Road subject to the following conditions:

1.         The applicant shall receive a final recommendation from the HP&DRC consistent with the Planning Commission design review approval of 10/13/05.

2.         Any Final Plan application shall address comments made by the Shelburne Public Works Director, Fire Chief, and Susan Smichenko of the CCMPO.

3.         Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Letter of Credit for 100% of the cost of the required landscaping with a term of two years shall be submitted.

4.         Lighting shall comply with the lighting section of the Shelburne zoning bylaws.

5.         Any Final Plan application shall contain information about the areas occupied by existing easements and right-of-way as well as the setback distance from the edge of possible future rights-of-way and structures.

6.         Any Final Plan application shall contain materials addressing all items contained in the Subdivision Final Plan Checklist and contain a statement addressing the compatibility of the project with policies in the Town Plan and standards included in the Shelburne zoning bylaw, subdivision bylaw, and public works specifications.

7.         Any Final Plan shall be consistent with the plans submitted including the proposed Option A-1, Site Plan, dated February 25, 2005, last revised 10/13/05, which may be used instead of Sheet L-1, Concept Plan A, prepared by SE Group, dated 9/22/05.

VOTING:  5 ayes, 1 nay (Gignoux); motion carried.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to ratify the motion to warn a public hearing on the Town Plan on November 10, 2005, and further to issue the Planning Commission report on the amendment. VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

 

Dean Pierce suggested prior to the work session on November 3^rd, an open session from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. be held to allow the public to view Town Plan materials. The Planning Commission agreed. Dean Pierce will advertise the session.

The Planning Commission received an updated meeting schedule and materials from Mike Munson.

 

Dean Pierce reported the Planning Commission decision on the subdivision and site plan application by Ken Albert (winery) is under appeal.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.

 

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

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Amy Damitrowitz, Diane Hartman, Jess Oppenheimer, Paul Huyffer, Helen Huyffer, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (10/13/05)

3.      Design Review, Harbor Meadows Condominium Association/Burlington Community Land Trust, 14-36 McCabe Circle (DR05-26)

4.      Design Review & Site Plan Amendment, Clayton Investments, Inc./Weiliff, Inc. (d/b/a Bistro Sauce), 97 Falls Road (DR05-25 & SP05-05)

5.      Sketch Plan Review, Paul & Helen Huyffer, 401 Barstow Road (SUB91-1R1)

6.      Other Business, Correspondence

7.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Peterson read the following resolution of the Shelburne Planning Commission:

            Whereas: Dean Pierce is our loyal and dedicated Planner, and

Whereas: Dean Pierce unfailingly serves the Town of Shelburne with good humor and great competence, and

Whereas: Dean Pierce constantly tries to keep the Planning Commission focused and in line with duty, and

Whereas: Dean Pierce shows his great affection for us by willingly spending four nights a month in our company without complaining,

Be It Hereby Resolved: That Today, October 27, 2005, being Dean Pierce’s birthday, the Shelburne Planning Commission hereby awards him our VERY BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

 

 

Rick Peterson mentioned an emailed note from Peter Richardson to Dean Pierce, dated 10/24/05, requesting the minutes be amended to clarify the sidewalks and crosswalks in the southwest corner of his property (Shelburne Inn) as indicated in Option A-1 were shown for “illustrative purposes only”. Following discussion, the Planning Commission felt the applicant should return to explain exactly what is wanted.

 

 

Amy Damitrowitz and Diane Hartman appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Diane Hartman explained the Design Review Committee identified a preferred location within the site for the cluster style mailbox, but the area is not really accessible.  The selected area is next to Unit 13-B.

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 10/27/05. Dean Pierce noted there was discussion of marking the space next to the mailbox cluster to ensure an open area, but the Design Review Committee felt this was not necessary.

 

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

 

Chairman Peterson reported the applicant requested a continuance of the application(s) until December 8, 2005.

 

 

Helen and Paul Huyffer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Helen Huyffer explained the proposal to subdivide their lot and give the newly created lot to their daughter and son-in-law for a house. Guidance is sought from the Planning Commission on how to best achieve the subdivision.  Chairman Peterson pointed out at least five acres and 400’ width on at least one side of the lot are needed per the regulations. Dean Pierce clarified the 400’ requirement can be waived if there is an access acceptable to the Planning Commission. Another option is to review the development as a PRD.

 

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 10/27/05.  Dean Pierce noted the subdivision is a re-subdivision of a previously subdivided lot.  There was discussion of moving the lot line by 50’ to achieve the 400’ width dimension. There was also discussion of running the lot line completely across the existing lot and making each newly created lot less than 10 acres to prohibit further subdivision in the future. Paul Huyffer suggested rather than dictating the size of each lot, a condition of approval could be made to state no further subdivision will be allowed. Rick Peterson stressed the concern that stipulations can be changed by agreement.  The Planning Commission prefers both lots being less than 10 acres in size.

 

Dean Pierce noted the Natural Resources Committee will discuss the project at their November 3^rd meeting.

 

The Planning Commission mentioned doing a site visit.

 

Dean Pierce noted a neighbor, John Stetson, called and asked about previous approvals prohibiting further subdivision of the land. Mr. Pierce said his research did not reveal this information.

 

There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson declared the evidentiary portion of the hearing closed.

 

The Planning Commission received materials for the 11/3/05 work session on the town plan update with Mike Munson.

 

The Planning Commission received a copy of a newspaper article on a housing development company and implications for planning and zoning.

 

A map showing the rural zones (sending areas) and residential zones (receiving areas) was given to the Planning Commission for review. Dean Pierce explained the rural zone shows lots greater than 20 acres in size with non-conserved or restricted land which could transfer development rights. For TDR, the zoning may have to be changed in the rural zone from five acres to 10 acres. The property owner in the rural zone would have the same amount of development rights, but if there is to be development on the site, the property owner would only be able to do half as much with the land.

 

Hilda White questioned a receiving area being shown on the east side of Spear Street since that area is designated a rural zone. It was noted there may be some inaccuracies in the maps. Dean Pierce said he simply wanted to get a general idea of the balance of zones for TDR purposes. It was noted the Richfield and Wake Robin parcels should not be considered receiving areas because no further development is allowed on the sites. Hilda White stressed the work that was done to protect the entrance into the village and that the zoning should not be changed if it will impact that work. Rick Peterson observed the primary receiving areas appear on the periphery of the growth areas and that is not what the Planning Commission wants.  The secondary receiving area as shown on the map is more of what the Planning Commission is seeking (i.e. higher density occurring closer to the village center area as opposed to the rural areas). The Planning Commission wants to create inducement for residential development in the mixed use zone.

 

Further discussion of the TDR concept will occur at the November 3, 2005 work session.

 

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

The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.