MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tom Koerner, Chairperson; Milton Edelman, Gwen Webster, Steve Waltien, Boris Funtow.

ADMINISTRATION:           Cindy Tyminski, Acting Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Robert Lake, Henry Sorrell, Manny Gurowski, Peter Morris, Gregg Beldock, Joseph Fallon, George Faris, Sharron Balaban, Dennis Webster, R. B. Klinkenberg, Jacques Landry, Will Eick, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).  Several others were not identified.

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Introductions were made. Mr. Koerner explained the deliberative process, noting deliberative session may be held at the end of the hearing.

 

Robert Lake, owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner noted that a mathematical error in volume had resulted in a continuation of the application.  The volume calculations have been revised. Ms. Tyminski said that there is a new garage dormer calculation and the volume of the garage had been removed from the available cubic footage at the initial hearing in 1999.

 

Mr. Lake explained that his calculation of the new dormer of 1,230 cubic over the garage was incorrect.  The correct number is 864 cubic feet. With the approval of this dormer there will be 5,669 cubic feet remaining for future expansion.  Mr. Koerner cautioned that if the revised calculation is not correct, there could be problems when the house is sold. The calculation should be confirmed. Mr. Lake stated he had not received any comments from neighbors.

 

None.

 

MOTION by Mr. Funtow, seconded by Ms. Webster, to approve CU05-11,  application of Robert Lake, 440 Clearwater Road, for conditional use approval to expand a noncomplying structure and to change the garage orientation with the conditions set forth in the Staff Report, dated 05/02/05, and as noted below:

 

MOTION by Ms. Webster, seconded by Mr. Waltien, to table consideration of CU05-06, application by Sean and Jennifer McGrath of Marco’s Pizzeria and Beverage for Conditional Use approval for the expansion of a non-conforming structure (§1620.2), to add a handicapped ramp (§1690.6) and to change the existing use from primarily a retail store (§820.10) to a pizzeria (§820.22) as a similar allowable Conditional Use, until the June 2, 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.

 

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

 

Joseph Fallon and George Faris, attorneys, and Peter Morris appeared on behalf of the applicant, Gregg Beldock.

 

Mr. Koerner noted the Board had a site walk on Thursday, 04/28/05.  Mr. Koerner said that the Board saw a little of what was happening and what was not happening at the site.

 

Mr. Koerner asked for further testimony.  He asked the applicant’s representative if the demarcation representing the top of the steel had ever been constructed.  Attorney Faris said a good faith effort was made to put up a demarcation of the top of the steel beams.  Mr. Koerner stated that he just wanted to know if it had been implemented or not. Mr. Faris replied that the demarcation had been blown down.

 

Mr. Faris pointed out that this is a conditional use application regarding the modification of a non-complying structure.  He said that during the site walk a number of issues arose, one of them being whether permits were in place. Attorney Faris contended this is not an issue at the hearing. Attorney Faris said that there are other venues in which the lack of permits and violations can be addressed. He suggested that the Board look beyond these issues when evaluating this application this evening.

 

Secondly, Mr. Faris stated that there were questions raised regarding various uses of the athletic area. He stated that this matter is being addressed in a letter to the Zoning Coordinator and is not before the Board at this hearing.

 

Attorney Faris said that he believed that there were two primary issues related to the review of this non-complying structure.  One included the review of the five conditional use criteria and the other was to determine whether the new construction was exasperating the non-conformity. The issue of whether the structure diminished setbacks any further was addressed at the last hearing, stated Mr. Faris.   It was agreed the four steel beams on the east side are within the existing “structural” footprint.

 

Attorney Faris said that the conditional use criteria regarding capacity of community facilities, traffic, and the Town Plan have been addressed by staff and no adverse impacts were noted.  

 

Attorney Faris said that he would like to convince the Board that there will be no adverse affect on the character of the area, which is the second of the conditional use criteria.  Mr. Faris noted that this component of the project is located entirely within the Commercial/Industrial district, and the proposed use is a permitted use within that district.

 

Attorney Faris introduced Peter Morris, designer of the affordable housing units. Mr. Morris provided a rendering of the proposed renovation of the Blodgett building and said the drawings were “nearly accurate” with regards to the building. Mr. Koerner asked what “nearly accurate” meant.  Mr. Morris explained that the information that he had when he did the drawings showed the columns on the western side being exposed, when in fact they are interior.  Mr. Morris further stated that his staff had printed the wrong copies for him.

 

Secondly, Mr. Morris showed a site plan, showing the same rendering with respect to all the roads.  A rendering of moderate-income housing project was presented.   Mr. Morris stated that he believed that the aesthetics of this project (Harrington Circle) spoke to his credentials. 

 

Mr. Morris said that his “take” on this project is that the superstructure would be visible from the Town only “intermittently”. He further suggested that leaves on the trees along Harbor Road make it “virtually impossible” to see the building from the west.  The building is at some distance from the road once it can be seen. He said that he believed that the current Blodgett building is not an interesting building in its own right. The trusses will add texture and shadow to the building. Mr. Morris said that he had seen the trusses earlier in the evening.  Mr. Waltien asked if the trusses were already on site.  Mr. Morris said that they were at the site on the ground.

 

Mr. Morris’ stated his opinion that the impact of the trusses is only an “on-site” issue. Ms. Webster asked if Mr. Morris agreed that trusses also imposed an issue when driving along Route 7. Ms. Webster had questions about the height of the steel beams already coming out of the building. She stated that the beams were coming out of the building midway and do not appear to be 13’ above the building. Ms. Webster stated the concern is primarily with the non-complying east side of the building.  Ms. Webster stated that since the applicant was unable to get anything up on the building, it would be more difficult to determine the impact on the visual Route 7 corridor coming into the Village.

 

Mr. Morris represented that as the building exists, it is almost impossible to see. Ms. Webster agreed and repeated “as it exists”. She explained when 13 feet was added to the top, the building would be clearly visible from Route 7.   She stated that her primary concern is the impact on the visual corridor entering the Village, which is on the National Historical Register.

 

Mr. Morris said he understood the overall height would be less than 45’. Mr. Beldock stated the building would be 37’. Mr. Beldock asked Ms. Webster if she ever had concerns with the HVAC or the paint booths that used to exist along the east side of building. Ms. Webster said once again is that her concern is with the visual impact of this particular expansion of a non-complying structure and the visual impact of the superstructure from Route 7.

 

Mr. Beldock said the superstructure would be less obtrusive than the HVAC equipment. He said the superstructure would only be visible if one was driving 10 miles per hour.  Driving at a normal speed in either direction, he believes that the building is visible for only a “22-yard section” in one place and a “19-yard section” in another place.

 

Mr. Koerner suggested that it would have been a lot easier to visualize if the applicant had put up a piece of string with a few pieces of orange flagging tied to it.  Mr. Beldock testified that it had proven impossible to put the string and flagging up along the east side.  He further explained that putting up this string could not be accomplished with the aid of a 350-ton crane.  Mr. Beldock claimed that he had not been asked to install the “string” in a timely manner and that it would have been easier if he had know “months ago” that he would be in this position.  He further commented that “we should all should share in this burden”.

 

Mr. Morris continued the presentation by noting the impact of the trusses in terms of the immediate neighborhood is on site versus Harbor Road. Mr. Koerner interrupted the speaker as there continued to be commentary from the audience.  Mr. Koerner informed the audience that if this continued the room would be cleared out and the hearing would end.  Directing his comment to the parties making the comments, Mr. Koerner informed to them that it was “up to you”.

 

Mr. Koerner apologized to Mr. Morris and asked him to continue.  Mr. Morris stated again that the impact of the trusses is on-site.  He said he would speak to the eastern side a little later.  Mr. Morris said that it was his personal opinion that the trusses enliven the building and make it more interesting. The use has gone from an industrial facility to a sports facility.

 

Mr. Edelman asked if there would be an impact on the housing that is being constructed. Mr. Morris replied the building was so far away from housing that there should not be an impact. The trusses should give “shadow-play” and “break up” the mass of the building.

 

Mr. Waltien said that he drove up from the south on Shelburne Road twice today.  Mr. Waltien stated the two uprights on the rooftop were easily visible at 25-30 mph. He stated that there no question that you will be able to see the superstructure very well from Route 7. The question before the board is whether the superstructure has a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Waltien said that there are absolute facts, such as can you see the superstructure or can you not see the superstructure?  Mr. Waltien said that undoubtedly the superstructure will be visible from Route 7 and that it is wasting time to suggest that it will not.  The real question, suggested Mr. Waltien is whether it will have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood

 

Mr. Morris commented that often latticework will be placed under porches or in front of panels to create shadow-lines that break up a form.  He believed that the trusses would serve to lighten the form.   Mr. Funtow stated that “People don’t put latticework on the roofs of their homes. 

 

Mr. Morris explained that if the beams were enclosed with solid sides to the height of the trusses, then you would be looking at a mass. With the trusses alone, the mass would be diminished.

 

Mr. Funtow observed this truss structure is different architecturally from what exists now in the Shelburne Village.   Mr. Funtow recognized that it is an industrial area, but it is one that is surrounded by residential homes and the historic Village center.  He said that the superstructure will have an impact.  Mr. Morris replied that he believed that it would be a great focus. 

 

Mr. Morris then said the sports fields will be a wonderful addition to the Town. Mr. Funtow clarified we are not talking about sports fields.  He informed Mr. Morris that we are talking about the non-complying structure and the way it will look. Mr. Funtow explained that the Board is considering the expansion of a building with exposed trusses that would have impact on Route 7 and Harbor Road, both of which are entry corridors into the Village.

 

Mr. Morris commented that building can be 45’ high in the industrial zone and suggested that the proposal is better than being 45’ high. He stated that if the trusses are boxed in, it will look like more of a massive structure.

 

Attorney Faris addressed the Board and suggested that this project does not impose an undue adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Faris further stated that the applicant has taken appropriate steps to minimize the extent of the truss work. The option of color was mentioned so that it could “blend in”. Attorney Faris revealed that he also traveled south on Route 7 and he discussed the view.  He explained that Charter One Bank has a hedge and the bank building blocks the view. The super structure would be seen over the one-story Ark Veterinary building. The Creamery is a three-story structure that blocks the view from north and south. The next house has a large hedge. Mr. Faris said that the view from Route 7 is intermittent if not occluded.  Mr. Waltien said he would agree with that the view would be intermittent.

 

Mr. Faris stated that the question is what are “undue and adverse affects” of this project? The trusses will provide interest and they lighten up an otherwise dull building.. Under the Quechee Lakes criteria it needs to be determined if it violates a written town standard. Attorney Faris noted that there are not any significant views identified in the Town Plan that are preservation worthy in this area.  He noted that there have been steps taken to mitigate the effect along Harbor Road. There are seven screen trees, the ball field backstop, the new housing and wetlands with vegetation.

 

Mr. Faris explained that Lee Suskin, an abutter, asked for screening trees and the applicant is willing to discuss this with Mr. Suskin. Mr. Waltien reminded Mr. Beldock that he had earlier agreed to 24’ trees.

 

Mr. Faris said that this project has met both prongs of the Quechee Lakes test.  The project has been designed well, has met the Town’s standards, and has presented mitigation steps.  He said he believed that the project should go forward.

 

Mr. Beldock noted that this project began with a building that needed to be razed. To create a recreational structure, renovations were needed. Mr. Beldock said that he needs to do something, maybe even build the box structure that the Board is suggesting.

 

  Mr. Beldock went on to explain that this is not his personal vision.  Mr. Beldock instructed the Board that Philip Johnson and I. M. Pei have made careers and legacies by bringing infrastructure from the inside to the outside.  Mr. Beldock stated he believed that this approach is whimsical and brings movement to the building.  Mr. Beldock named several ball fields as well as the Montreal Olympic building as similar structures in which the exoskeleton is visible.

 

Mr. Beldock indicated that the 1988 Town Plan calls Harbor Road and Route 7 the Town entrance. The building is visible from Route 7, conceded Mr. Beldock, but the exoskeleton is attractive and represents Vermont vernacular.  He said that the superstructure would indicate that this industrial/commercial property is in a transition zone.

 

Mr. Beldock went on to explain that there are outside recreation fields and there are inside recreational fields. He said that he believed that this design is attractive and explained that this design brings the inside out and the outside in.  He stated that to have a simple, uninteresting building there would not be a good thing.  He stated that the Town is lucky to have the design that he came up with.

 

Mr. Beldock pointed out that a “big box” is not an attractive design option.  He said that we do not need another Costco, but that is an alternative. Mr. Beldock apologized because he did not bring the entire scope of the design to the attention of the Board.  He stated he did not know the full extent of the size of the exoskeleton until January. He said that he did not know that he was coming back to the Board until November (2004).  He explained that he was “hustling” as fast as he could and that there were a lot of contractual obligations that he had to meet prior to November (2004).  He stated that he had contractual obligations with the Town and with the steel factory.

 

Ms. Webster expressed concern that a steel skeleton is abutting an historic district. Ms. Webster also stated that she wished something had been placed on the roof representing the steel so she could visualize the impact.  Mr. Beldock said that he received the call Wednesday afternoon from the Zoning Coordinator, and it took him a while to figure out what she was asking for.  He said he immediately put up tape and sheetrock compound buckets, but the poles fell over. Mr. Beldock said that the weather did not cooperate with this request.

 

Mr. Beldock explained that the traffic engineer had determined that at 25 mph the “cone of view” would make it impossible to view  the building, but a view is possible at 10 mph. Mr. Waltien pointed out that people turn their heads when they are driving. 

 

Mr. Waltien discussed the impact of the project and that the Shelburne soccer program is a community gathering, and on Saturday mornings there are 1,000 people on the playing fields and that they would be within several hundred feet of the building. The question has to be asked as to whether the building is attractive for a sports gathering in a small community. There is a very clear impact on the community that goes beyond what you can see on Route 7 and Harbor Road, said Mr. Waltien.

 

Mr. Beldock stated there will be winter visitors to the fieldhouse facilities. Recreational facilities must have an interesting design. Mr. Beldock said he would like the west columns to be on the outside as well, citing the Olympic facility. The town has two choices: Costco or something that has interest.

 

Mr. Beldock went on to say that there has to be some “trust”, because we can’t “sit here and redesign the building”.  He stated that the Board needed to consider in “the history of Shelburne” has the developer “created attractive structures?”  Mr. Beldock stated that he believed he had created attractive structures in Shelburne.

 

Mr. Beldock said that the interior of the building is industrial with the high ceilings, but it is almost quixotic. The HVAC equipment is slightly retro, but the building is not Vermont vernacular.

 

Mr. Waltien agreed the interior is great, but maybe not “quixotic”. Mr. Beldock promised that the exterior will be even better. He said that the landscaping will play an important role, and he has already paid a lot more on landscaping than what was required.

 

Mr. Koerner asked if the presentation was complete.

 

Mr.  Funtow asked about the Site Plan that was submitted with the application.  Mr. Funtow was provided with the plan.

 

Mr.  Koerner asked for public comment.

 

An unidentified audience member spoke and said he was a resident of Shelburne and Shelburne Athletic Club member.  He spoke in favor of the project. From the taxpayer point of view, the building is not much different from what is there aesthetically. The project is a community benefit. In winter, the club provides an opportunity to be healthy and active. He claimed that joining the Shelburne Athletic Club was less expensive than other clubs including the Y.M.C.A.  Mr. Waltien said that he doubted that that was true.  The resident said that maybe Mr. Waltien had different discounts than he did. He said that the Shelburne Athletic Club was a positive thing in the community as the Club supports community events. 

 

Martin Gold, Shelburne property owner, said the design use of forms is the perception of the viewer. A silo that looks natural in a cornfield, looks inappropriate in downtown Burlington.  He believes that the exposure of the beams will allow people to perceive the structure in an appropriate way. 

 

Dorothea Penar, Design Review Board member and resident, expressed concern about aesthetics.  Ms. Pennar said that the entrances to the Village are important and cautioned against setting a precedent and taking care with design.

 

Ms. Penar said that she was “positively ripped” about how the developer has shown total disregard for the process by not following the rules. She said that the developer was not “new to development” and was “fully aware” of Town rules.   It was frustrating for many of the members of the Boards and Committees that have been involved in this process to see that things already are in place prior to asking for approval. As an example of this she explained that the foundations were already poured before the applicant asked to change the size of the buildings.  Ms.  Penar stated that even after that, what was built did not conform to the plans that had been approved. Ms. Penar said she has found it frustrating that Town rules and guidelines have been disregarded throughout the process and this is how the developer has chosen to act toward the Town and the Town’s Boards.  The Town has allowed the developer not to be accountable for his actions.  Ms. Penar expressed further disappointment that the Selectboard had waived most of the impact fees in light of the applicant’s behavior.

 

Mr. Funtow reminded the speaker that the question before the Zoning Board is the expansion of a non-complying structure and that the five conditional use criteria must be evaluated. 

 

Ms. Penar went on to explain that the problem of only considering the “cone of vision” when driving 35 M.P.H. from a vehicle ignores that fact that a “concerted effort” is being made to make Shelburne Village a destination and a place to walk. Ms. Penar spoke of how the Village is on the National Register of Historic places said that it was her belief that mitigation could be done in some way. When asked her opinion about the design, Ms. Penar responded that the design may be functional and cost effective, but it is not beautiful.  She said that without question this project creates an impact.  She said that it is up to the Board to determine whether the impact is undue. 

 

Sharron Balaban, a new Shelburne resident, explained that she has recently purchased a Shelburne property and will be making improvements to it. Ms. Balaban said while she is unfamiliar with all the rules, as she is not a developer, she will, out of respect to the Town and its Boards, follow all the rules through the approval process. Ms. Balaban said when she read about this project, she was appalled by the developer’s failure to follow the appropriate process.

 

Ms. Balaban said she has a lot of questions about the process and whether it has been followed by the group that is proposing this project. She said that she knows that fines can be incurred in the Town of Shelburne and asked whether they have been paid by the applicant. Ms. Balaban asked "if a fine is paid, where does the money go"? Mr. Waltien replied “to the community”.

 

Ms. Balaban said she has some resistance to the Fieldhouse project because she will be going through a similar process with her project and she can not bypass the rules. Ms. Balaban expressed confusion as to how a project of this magnitude can move forward when the applicant has not followed the rules. Ms. Balaban said that when the Board was discussing what kind of impact the building will have, they are failing to recognize what is really important in this case.  What is important is the impact on the process. She warned that by allowing the applicant not to follow rules, the Town is essentially “opening a can of worms” and future developers will misuse the system as well.

 

 Mr. Koerner stated the application is reviewed for visual impact, and suggested they should not get sidetracked with the permitting process.

 

Chet Tabeault, Harbor Road/Blodgett Road resident, stated his property is near the Blodgett Building and voiced concern about the lack of process. Mr. Tabeault said he can see the building superstructure and the building was unattractive. Mr. Tabeault requested trees as was promised to another neighbor of the project. The Town is a co-applicant in the project, and it appears the town and the developer are “in bed” together. Regarding the superstructure, Mr. Tabeault said from his point of view, the design is not a big deal.

 

Scott McDade, resident and Shelburne Athletic Club member.  He said he noticed all the kids playing outside.  He would like to see the fields so there will be a place for kids and adults to go.

 

Attorney Fallon stated that the project is a unique development and there is an agreement with the Town. Promises were made to the developer that have not been kept. The matter is not as clear cut as it would seem. He stated that everyone does not know the whole story.

 

Ms. Balaban commented that she would like to hear the whole story as the right of a taxpayer. She said that the issue is complicated because the Town is “sleeping with the developer”. The premise of doing this “for our children” is not fair. She supports sidewalks and athletic clubs, but does not support a project that does not have to follow the process.

 

Attorney Fallon explained that at a January 29 meeting, the developer, Town Attorney, and Town Manager met. The Town Manager indicated that the Zoning Coordinator was out sick, but the developer will have the building permit on Monday. Mr. Beldock had paid $122,000 for a building permit. Mr. Beldock was then told that he wouldn’t get the permit because he needed conditional use approval.

 

Mr. Bohne, Town Manager, asked the Zoning Board Chair for personal privilege. Mr. Bohne objected to the discussion as not being germane to the current zoning hearing and urged the Board to only listen to germane testimony.

 

Mr. Koerner stated the Zoning Board will consider the Site Plan and visual impacts. Mr. Funtow noted recreational use is a permitted use, and the building is noncomplying to the setback only.

 

Bill Rockford, resident, urged those in attendance to put aside passion and emotion. Mr. Rockford testified he only noticed the Blodgett building for the first time while driving. Mr. Rockford said he agreed that creating a visual interest from the fields could be valuable. Ms. Webster pointed out the beams will rise 13’ above the building.

 

There were no further questions.

 

Mr. Koerner said the Board will deliberate at the end of the meeting in Deliberative Session.  After the deliberative session there was a motion made.

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Edelman to approve CU05-12, application by Fieldhouse LLC as presented at the meetings of 04/02/2005 and 05/06/2005 to expand a non-complying structure.

 

 

CU05-014: Application by Manny Gurowski (agent) and Tray Pecor (Owner) of Lake Champlain Ferries for modification of a non-complying structure (§1620.2.2) and to change the existing use from an auto supply store to multiple uses (§820.23) including a hair salon (§840.4) and professional offices (§810.4) on property formerly known as Bond Auto located at 2997 Shelburne Road in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII)

Manny Gurowski and Henry Sorrell appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner noted the former Bond Auto building is a non-complying structure within the 100’ setback from Route 7. Concern is parking. The applicant submitted a parking analysis. The two uses proposed are a hair salon and National Life Insurance offices. Ms. Tyminski stated office use is a permitted use.

 

Mr. Gurowski stated the Route 7 curb cut will be eliminated and access will be from Hullcrest Drive. There are a total of 30 parking spaces on the site of which two spaces are designated for handicap parking.  There will be no exterior structural changes other than painting. Mr. Gurowski indicated where two or three additional parking spaces could be located on the site. Mr. Gurowski corrected the square footage of the building (it is 6,000 square feet not 6,300 square feet).

 

Mr. Koerner stated the site plan must contain the correct dimensions and show the correct number of parking spaces.  The applicant also needs to break down the uses on the site into the respective square footage space and the total should equal 6,000 square feet.

 

Mr. Gurowski calculated 1,365 square feet for the beauty salon, 1,365 square feet for office use, and 3,270 square feet for a future office use for a total of 6,000 square feet.

 

 Additional parking spaces for a total of 32 parking spaces will be added to the site plan. The applicant was assisted by Ms. Tyminski in revising the site plan with the updated information, including setback dimensions. The site plan was date stamped May 2, 2005.  Mr. Gurowski initialed the changes.

 

Mr. Gurowski stated there is 2.5 acres of land. Hours of operation for the offices and the hair salon will be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The salon will be open Saturdays as well. The building will be closed on Sundays. There are no changes to the exterior lighting. Mr. Gurowski showed the location of an overhead door; there is not a loading dock. Mr. Gurowski stated there will be no new vibrations, noise, or odors.

 

Mr. Funtow read the zoning regulations related to parking for office/retail buildings. Mr. Koerner stated uses must be on record with the calculations for the number of parking spaces.  There was brief discussion of the property access. Mr. Gurowski said the Route 7 curb cut is eliminated. Access is by the traffic light at the Hullcrest/Route 7 intersection. Ms. Webster commented that the garbage area (dumpster) should be screened. Mr. Koerner said the dumpster location needs to be shown on the site plan and the dumpster must be screened.

 

None.

CU05-014: Application by Manny Gurowski (agent) and Tray Pecor (Owner) of Lake Champlain Ferries for modification of a non-complying structure (§1620.2.2) and to change the existing use from an auto supply store to multiple uses (§820.23) including a hair salon (§840.4) and professional offices (§810.4) on property formerly known as Bond Auto located at 2997 Shelburne Road in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII)

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Edelman, to approve CU05-014: application by Manny Gurowski, agent, and Tray Pecor, Owner, Lake Champlain Ferries, 2997 Shelburne Road, for modification of a non-complying structure (§1620.2.2) and to change the existing use from an auto supply store to multiple uses (§820.23) including a hair salon (§820.4) and professional offices (§810.4) with conditions set forth in the Staff Report, dated 05/02/05, and as noted below:

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

Jacques Landry, owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed the application to increase density of uses to eight units, which was not an increase of the square footage of the building. No changes are proposed to the building. Mr. Koerner reviewed the general regulations. Ms. Tyminski said the applicant is changing the number of units, but maintaining the same square footage.

Mr. Landry explained the request is to divide the former K&L Sports space into two areas. Edward Jones is already permitted to occupy the C-1 space (one-half of the K&L Sports). Spaces B and C-2 are not occupied. When all the units are occupied there will be a total of eight tenants, the development is currently allowed to have seven.

 

Mr. Landry briefly reviewed the approval history of the Tenneybrook Square project from 1984 for 15,000 square feet and six tenants. It was not certain the building is limited to six tenants. In 1996, a restaurant was approved and now is the seventh tenant. Mr. Landry read the list of tenants. Mr. Landry stated that there will be no impact on parking, water or sewer with the proposed change. Edward Jones will have a receptionist, office manager and at least two customers per day.  The existing sign used by the K&L Sports shop will be re-used. The sign is already permitted.

 

Mr. Koerner asked for clarification of whether a new use in the remaining space is being proposed. Mr. Landry said he did not know; if a retail use occupied the Dollar Store space, then he would not need to back to the Zoning Board.  There was discussion of uses prior to approval. Ms. Tyminski noted six months of vacancy triggers a review of use.

 

Mr. Funtow observed if the uses are a split between retail and professional office, then less parking would be required. Mr. Landry stated there is more parking available than is needed. The original project was approved with 66 parking spaces, but there are a total of 81 spaces.

 

None.

1. The changes to and uses of the site shall occur as indicated on the Site Plan as submitted and prepared by the applicant, date stamped 04/08/05. The above-mentioned plan was submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Board during the public hearing on 05/02/05 as amended.

2. Approval is indicated for eight units and similar retail use. A different use shall trigger review by the Zoning Coordinator.

3. Within sixty (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.

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

 

R. B. Klinkenberg, owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner briefly reviewed the request for conditional use approval for modification of a non-complying structure.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Klinkenberg clarified the change of use, that there are actually 43 parking spaces versus 33 spaces as indicated in the staff report.  A custom cabinetry use is proposed in Section E (formerly Woodbury’s Woodworking) and retail use in Section B and A (Vincent’s). The Shelburne Museum will use Section D for storage of carriages.

 

Mr. Klinkenberg gave a brief history of the site. The Chocolate Barn building on the south side has been purchased and torn down for parking. The rear building is constructed of old cinder block with a tin roof. There may be existing zoning permits for retail uses in Sections B and C. A custom cabinet making shop has expressed interest in renting Space E. Approval is being sought for tenants. 

 

Storage is not permitted in the Village District. Mr. Klinkenberg said he is hesitant to inform the Shelburne Museum that they will have to move the carriages. The space is convenient and adjacent to the Museum property and Museum security conducts daily checks on the carriages. Mr. Waltien commented the use (storage of carriages) is benign. Ms. Tyminski pointed out the carriage storage is similar to renting storage space. Approval can limit the activity to a specified number of square feet of storage.  There was further discussion of the Shelburne Museum storage and that storage is a permitted use for the Shelburne Museum buildings nearby.

 

It was noted woodworking/manufacturing is not a permitted use in the Village District.  But this use is comparable existing uses in the Village include Boyd’s Guitar shop located below the Companion Hardware store and the Shelburne Craft School woodworking shop. Mr. Eick, the custom cabinet maker, stated that it takes a month to do a typical project and intensity of use would be low.  Mr. Eick explained that an internal dust collector would keep the shop dust free and the dust collector would not be vented to the outside. He said that space in the proposed woodworking shop of 2,300 square feet is not all usable space as there is an old steam plant in the space. Mr. Eick stated that car and truck traffic would be minimal and said that design of cabinets is a large part of his service.

 

Ms. Tyminski reviewed the zoning regulations, Section 920.20, other similar uses. Mr. Funtow suggested conditioning the approval under Section 920.9, personal service shop, as a similar use to a low volume craft business versus a manufacturing/mass production workshop.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dennis Webster, abutter and resident of Hillside Terrace, stated that the north boundary of his property is the south boundary of the Harrington business. Noise and truck activity at Harrington’s begins at 7 a.m. During Christmas time, Harrington’s has a noisy refrigerator truck that runs day and night. Mr. Webster stated the west portion of his lawn is under water due to storm water runoff from the Harrington parking lot. Regarding a woodworking use he remembers Woodbury’s as being very dusty and noisy.

 

Mr. Webster explained that the Museum storage is not a problem except in summer when the hourly security checks by the Museum security guards disturb sleep in the middle of the night. He said that the parking and the loading dock are problems. Mr. Webster said he requested a fence between his property and the Harrington property as well as a 6’ arborvitae hedge by the parking lot area during a previous approval. Mr. Webster stated that at that time he had been promised an arborvitae hedge and a fence.

 

The Chocolate Barn had had some lawn which mitigated some of the drainage issues. Mr. Webster stated his house is 40’ from essentially a manufacturing space. Mr. Webster was urged to contact the Zoning Coordinator for recourse via Town bylaws. Mr. Klinkenberg assured his business will do a better job at Christmas time.

 

Mr. Koerner noted part of the conditional use process is to hear public comments and to take that testimony under consideration when reviewing an application. Mr. Koerner suggested that the affected parties meet to try and resolve any issues between them.  Mr. Webster expressed willingness to talk to Mr. Klinkenberg.

 

The five conditional use criteria were reviewed. Mr. Klinkenberg noted since Woodbury’s vacated the premises, the area has been mowed, the shed has been removed, and the space cleaned up in general. Mr. Eick clarified that the application contains four parts, and if the cabinet shop is a sticking point, perhaps the Zoning Board could do a partial approval.  Ms. Tyminski explained the applicant could withdraw the woodworking portion of the application and submit a new application at a later date.

 

Mr. Koerner suggested the woodworking shop be moved to the carriage storage space and the storage space be moved to the back. It was suggested that perhaps both the storage and the woodworking used be withdrawn from the current application.  Mr. Klinkenberg said Harrington’s has been in violation of zoning by allowing storage for seven years and would like to address the issue this evening.  The applicant eventually agreed to withdraw the woodworking and storage uses from the application.

 

It was determined 43 parking spaces are sufficient for the proposed and existing uses. Hours of operation will not extend beyond current hours and there are no changes to exterior lighting.  The applicant will contact the Zoning Coordinator if a site visit is necessary.

 

Mr. Koerner noted a letter from the abutting gas station owner was received.  Mr. Eick noted the letter was related to the woodworking shop portion of the application which has been withdrawn.

VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

 

None.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 6th day of June for the meeting of May 2, 2005.

 

 

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                   

Gwen Webster

Steve Waltien                                                  

Boris Funtow     

Milton Edelman