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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            David McNees, Helen Huyffer, Paul Huyffer, Karen Oppenheimer, Jess Oppenheimer, Mark Gadue, Mark Gilbert, Rad Romaine, Alice Brown, Judy Frasier, Bob Platt, Thea Platt, Richard Reid, Dick Elkins, Gwen Webster, David Webster, Alec Webb, Sue Duke, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News), and others.

        PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Comprehensive Plan

1.      Call to Order (regular meeting)

2.      Approval of Minutes (11/10/05 & 11/16/05)

3.      Design Review, Matthew Taylor Designs, 102 Harbor Road (DR05-27)

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 Continuance, Paul and Helen Huyffer, 401 Barstow Road (SUB91-1R1)

6.      Site Plan Review Amendment, Indisi, NV/Gadue’s Dry Cleaning, Inc., 2989 Shelburne Road (SP05-07)

7.      Other Business, Correspondence

8.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan at 7 p.m. Dean Pierce briefly reviewed the background, statutory requirements, elements of the plan, and significant changes.  The last major update of the Town Plan was done in the early 1990s. Open space conservation and controlling taxes were identified as key issues in town per a public survey done in 2003. There are two volumes in the Shelburne Town Plan. Information in the plan includes a vision statement, policy recommendations, data, narrative and analysis (trends, demographics, and such). Maps are in the appendices. Significant changes included in the update are the addition of a vision statement, update of the town plan map, evolutionary policy changes, and map changes refining the village district and sub-districts, expansion of the conservation district, change of an area on Route 7 north of the village from Residential-Commercial to Mixed Use and expansion to include some of the existing Commerce-Industrial zone, and expansion of residential zoning to an area north of the village. Policy recommendations in the plan include emphasizing the village as the heart of the town, emphasizing pedestrian mobility in the village, better defining the growth areas, rural areas, and resources.  The amendment process was reviewed (from the draft document through to the adoption of a final plan).

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Dick Reid, resident, read a statement urging maximum protection of natural resources in the town even at the expense of budget considerations, agricultural activity, other worthy community goals, and individual property rights. Mr. Reid cited as an example the Sterns-Tiballi property which has conservation restrictions to protect the natural resources, but recently had a deep canal excavated across the property from Harbor Road to the Ti Trail. The town was not able to stop the excavation and protect the natural resources on the property.  There have been hints of zoning regulations to provide the town with the tools to deal with these situations, and these zoning regulations should be made mandates to protect the water, land, animals, and plants, stressed Mr. Reid, adding any work in wetlands, water plains, and buffer areas should require a permit from the town.

 

Judy Frasier, village resident, asked about the change to Mixed Use in the Residential-Commercial district (i.e. having housing next to businesses). Rick Peterson explained the Town Plan indicates the district has potential to support some commercial as well as residential development, but takes care to avoid an inappropriate mix of the two. Dean Pierce added houses will be allowed in the same vicinity as commercial uses, but planning is done in a coordinated fashion so there is a community and the relationship between the houses and the commercial use makes sense.  Some land from the Commerce-Industry zone where no houses are allowed presently will be rezoned to be available for residential growth.  Ms. Frasier urged having controls for noise, fumes, dust, and other pollution in place to protect residents. Studies done by the EPA and the World Health Organization were mentioned. Ms. Frasier noted her personal experience living close to a busy road and the adverse impact of truck traffic (noise, dust, vibrations).  Fred Schmidt observed in theory Mixed Use zoning provides the town with greater flexibility to plan development to avoid a heavy concentration of commercial development like what is found on Shelburne Road in general.  Chairman Peterson stated site plan review of development applications looks at the impact on neighboring properties.

 

Dick Elkins, Bacon Drive, made several comments on the Plan update, first referring to Volume I, Page 9 with regard to higher density by Shelburne Falls. Mr. Elkins explained the reason there are not more houses by Shelburne Falls is because the lots are narrow (100’) and the land drops off into wetlands. Another example of a zoning change that may not be desired is the loop road. Mr. Elkins urged the town to find out what each neighborhood wants with regard to zoning changes (referring to changes as noted on pages 9 & 11, Volume I).  Mr. Elkins asked for clarification of the meaning of “broad setbacks” (Page 13), noting his preference for buildings set closer to the roadway. Rick Peterson explained the thought was to create a varied appearance along the road rather than a monolithic block of buildings.  Mr. Elkins referred to Page 27 (water quality and stream/lakeshore buffer requirements) and the buffer on the lake increase to 200’, noting some property owners in the overlay district have secured variances to allow expansion of the dwelling beyond the percent allowance. There needs to be a clear record of the property and expansions to the property so the allowance is not exceeded, stressed Mr. Elkins. Regarding Page 36 (community utilities) and the comment about public water and sewer resources even if there is impact to sensitive resources, Mr. Elkins felt if there is impact, the utilities should not be installed.  Chairman Peterson noted Steve Selin made the same observation in his written comments on the Plan.  Mr. Elkins referred to a book titled “Bigger not Better” and comments on growth subsidy incentives and growth neutral policy. According to the book, ‘growth subsidy incentives’ is rezoning so developers make more money from projects, and ‘growth neutral policy’ is where the town negotiates concessions with the developer so taxpayers are not paying for the new development. Mr. Elkins asked if density is assigned to certain areas of the town, pointing out that increasing the village density may have negative impacts on green space, lawns, and what makes the village what it is. Rick Peterson explained density is part of the work to be done with the zoning regulations.

 

Rad Romaine, Pond Road, suggested the Town Plan be strengthened and not vague so Planning Commission decisions can not be manipulated. Mr. Romaine cited the example of a developer skirting the intent of a Planning Commission approval by exploiting the wording of the approval because the wording is too vague.  Better enforcement tools are needed to ensure protection of the town.  Fred Schmidt urged citizen input on each application before the Planning Commission. Reg Gignoux pointed out the Town Plan sets priorities and goals then the regulations are developed. The Planning Commission will be revisiting the zoning regulations once the Town Plan update is complete. Public input is needed and welcome.

 

Bob Platt, Pond Road, asked if town departments (recreation, highway, fire) are required to adhere to the Town Plan. Dean Pierce stated if the town is undertaking land development where a zoning permit is required, then the rules must be followed. There are some situations of town involvement that is not land development, and the Town Plan could have some language indicating the Selectboard can develop a policy relative to a certain activity, for example, salt use by the town. Mr. Platt asked if the Town Plan trumps the zoning regulations. Mr. Pierce explained a project is reviewed to see if it fits the regulations and the Town Plan, but if the Plan is too vague, then the regulations will be used.

 

Thea Platt, Pond Road, asked if plans from other towns were reviewed for helpful information while doing the update of Shelburne’s Town Plan. Dean Pierce stated Shelburne hired a consultant with a depth of planning knowledge and broad experience within the State of Vermont.

 

Alice Brown, resident, urged the Planning Commission to implement the 110 person per year growth threshold with developers. Ms. Brown also asked if the state can implement the initiative to override conservation land for low income housing. Rick Peterson noted the Planning Commission has phasing authority, and it is not likely the state initiative will be enacted.

 

Alec Webb, resident, suggested the wording in the Plan be strengthened to include “energy” when speaking of ‘sustainable natural resources’ (Volume I, Page 18, Item 5).

 

There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m.

 

Chairman Peterson called the regular meeting to order at 8:06 p.m.

 

 

 

Sue Duke appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Duke explained the objective of the proposed awning over the front door at 102 Harbor Road is to protect the customers from rain/snow, and protect the stained glass on the inside of the door. The awning will be a half-dome over the door, extending out five feet. The historic “S” structures are not blocked. The awning will be black canvas material without lettering. Rod iron bars will be used. The design is consistent with the historic appearance of the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 12/8/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

David Webster asked if there will be any alterations to the building. The applicant explained there will be up to six holes drilled into the brick, but the holes will have a lead plug and the screws to hold the awning in place will go into the lead.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

·        A single cross piece may be added so that support brackets remain perpendicular (right angle) to the building or brackets may be angled toward the centerline of the structure (not perpendicular) to attach along the bottom of the awning frame.

·        To address safety concerns, the bottom loop of each bracket shall be closed to minimize inadvertent “snagging” of patrons.

 

David McNees appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. McNees described the plan to install a fieldstone patio for outdoor seating (up to 20 seats) on the side of the existing restaurant. The capacity of the restaurant is not increasing because the kitchen can not handle more than the current seating. The state granted capacity of 70 seats for the restaurant, and the town permit needs to be updated to reflect the same (currently the town permit shows 50-seat capacity). The proposed 14’ x 50’ stone patio will be on the north side of the building (grassed area presently). A door on the side of the building will access the patio. At the front end of the patio there will be a four foot high trellis fence (three foot high solid fence topped with a one foot trellis) and a four foot trellis gate for handicap and emergency access. On the long side of the patio, a solid straight fence (8’ to 10’ high) will be installed. There will be plantings in front of the fence (hydrangea, rhododendron, perennials) and vines on the fence. A fieldstone pathway from the sidewalk to the patio gate is also proposed. There will be five small tables on the patio, and no outside speakers for music. The dumpsters have been moved to the back of the property, and the parking area has been reconfigured so there are now 31 parking spaces on the lot (per the formula of one parking space for every two patrons, there is parking capacity on-site for 62 customers). Historically, overflow parking has been in the Shelburne Supermarket parking lot which is owned by the same individual who owns the property at 97 Falls Road. Trash pick up occurs during non-business hours. The dumpsters are screened by bushes on the north side. Access to the dumpsters is on the east side. Screening on the south side is with a wall of plastic storage bins holding linens for the restaurant.

 

There was discussion of the restaurant capacity and the need for a site plan amendment. Mr. McNees noted the restaurant has operated under the state’s allowance of 70 seats because no one was aware of the town’s capacity notation. Presently, the restaurant can manage 58 seats due to the size of the kitchen being able to support the number of patrons. It is possible there may be 70 people at the restaurant site at one time with people waiting for a table or at the bar, stated Mr. McNees.

 

Fred Schmidt mentioned the issue of noise from patrons using the outdoor seating. Mr. McNees assured the restaurant will be respectful of neighbors. There will not be any music speakers and the seated dining will not occur after hours.  The outdoor dining will add life to the street, stated Mr. McNees.

 

There was discussion of lighting and parking. Mr. McNees asked that minimal soft lighting in sconces on the interior posts of the fence on the north side of the patio be allowed.  The outdoor dining will occur during the day time hours mainly so only minimal lighting is needed. Light from the interior of the restaurant shines through the windows and will provide some light to the patio.  Regarding parking, Clayton Investments owns the shopping center and restaurant building. The shopping center parking lot is available for overflow parking at the restaurant if necessary.  Reg Gignoux suggested diagonal parking on the site will yield one more parking space.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the design review and site plan amendment applications, both dated 12/8/05. The Planning Commission wanted the fieldstone pathway categorized as such on the site plan rather than shown as patio space. The applicant noted the walkway will be flat fieldstone on top of a level base to allow use with a wheelchair. Other items that need to be shown on the site plan include the width of the parking spaces at nine feet, who prepared the plan, and an indication of scale.  Reg Gignoux suggested the applicant return with a site plan to scale to ensure the parking is adequate. Dean Pierce mentioned the applicant’s request for a parking waiver and suggested the Planning Commission draft a finding stating the number of parking spaces proposed is reasonable. There was discussion of the percent of parking allowed to be waived and whether a letter granting permission to use the shopping center parking lot would be sufficient.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Paul Huyffer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Paul Huyffer noted there was discussion with Dean Pierce about the PRD option which will allow managing the land without further development. Mr. Huyffer asked for clarification of the “major subdivision” categorization and the frontage issue.  Dean Pierce explained the proposal is considered a major subdivision because the property is actually being re-subdivided and the total number of lots created meets the requirements of a major subdivision.  Also, a PRD must be classified as a major subdivision. Both major and minor subdivisions go through sketch plan and final plan review by the Planning Commission, but a major subdivision includes preliminary plan review following sketch plan review and preceding final review.  PRD applications must go through the major subdivision process. There was discussion of different scenarios for the subdivision of the applicant’s property: a) two building lots and one open space lot; b) two lots with one lot having more acreage and a portion of that acreage designated as open space accessible by both lots via an easement; c) two lots divided to meet frontage requirements.  Rick Peterson suggested to avoid the possibility of further subdivision of the land which is in a five acre minimum zone, there could be two lots of less than 10 acres each.  Paul Huyffer stated two larger lots is not what is wanted. There was discussion of lot frontage and width. There was agreement a PRD offers a creative approach to create two lots of the size desired by the property owner and protect the open land from further development.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 12/8/05.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mark Gadue and Mark Gilbert appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mark Gadue stated the space formerly occupied by Red Wing Shoes will be the new location of the retail portion of Gadue’s Dry Cleaning. The production (dry cleaning) portion of the business is relocating to a site in Colchester.   Hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday.  Mr. Gadue reviewed business data for the store when it was located at 430 Shelburne Road. The busiest month is October. The busiest day is Monday.  Most of the customers come to the store in the morning hours or after 3 p.m.  At the new location (2989 Shelburne Road) there is a loading area at the rear of the store (back door). Deliveries will be done with a van.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 12/8/05. There was discussion of the building at 2989 Shelburne Road not being built out as indicated on the site plan. It was noted the parking layout is accurately depicted on the site plan (64 parking spaces in front of the building and 16 parking spaces in the back of the building). It was suggested the word “approved” be deleted on the site plan where it says “approved addition” because the addition is not built. There was discussion of the screening of the dumpster on the site. The applicant did not know if the dumpster is screened, however, the dumpster is not visible.  There was also discussion of exterior lighting, signs on the building, and the free standing sign being in compliance with current zoning regulations. The new location of Route 7 and associated improvements (sidewalk) need to be reflected on the site plan. It was noted site plan review is an opportunity for the town to ensure compliance to the town’s regulations.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

There was discussion of participating in the Public Service Board hearing on the Villanti’s request to replace an existing wind turbine with a larger one moved seven inches to the north.  Dean Pierce will draft a letter to the PSB confirming interest in participating in the hearing.

 

 

The Planning Commission received information pertaining to the Town Plan update from Mike Munson.

 

A memo from residents on Pond Road was reviewed regarding the development by Swenson Land & Cattle. Issues raised include concern the wording of the condition of approval related to tree cutting does not give the town much ability to enforce the condition, and the interpretation of measurement of building height needs clarification. Dean Pierce stated the matter is being researched and the Planning Commission will continue to be informed of the situation.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.