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

ADMINISTRATION:           Cindy Tyminski, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jack Malzac, Cathy Phillips, Michael Koper, David McNees, Nancy Hart, Carol Hinkel, Doug Schneible, Marcel Beaudin, Judy Guden, Russ Caffry, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Chairman Koerner called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and explained the procedure to be followed. Introductions were made.

 

None.

 

 

Jack Malzac, brother of Marcia Bristow and the contractor, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Malzac explained the proposal to build a 12’ x 22’ garage storage addition to the west side of the existing garage at 3528 Harbor Road. The addition will be single story (hip roof) and barely visible from the road.  The additional space will be used for storage, not as a car bay.  There is an existing two-car garage which previously had a second story added for two bedrooms.

 

The Zoning Board received a staff report on the application, dated 7/11/05.  It was noted the site plan needs to be revised to show the proposed expansion. There was discussion of the cubic foot calculations submitted by the applicant. The Zoning Administrator confirmed the numbers in the staff report are correct.  The applicant corrected the rendering of the addition for the record.

 

None.

 

MOTION by Gwen Webster, SECOND by Milton Edelman, to approve CU05-19 and grant conditional use approval to Robert and Marcia Bristow for expansion of a noncomplying structure (addition of garage storage space) under Section 1620.2.2 and Section 1330.1.2 of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws on property at 3528 Harbor Road which is in the Residential 3 District, the Lakeshore District, and the Floodplain Overlay District in accordance with the following conditions:

 

1.      Current approval allows for the expansion of the existing structure by 2,112 cubic feet.

2.      There are 9,180 cubic feet available for future expansion without exceeding the maximum fifty- percent (50%) expansion of the outside dimensions of the original noncomplying building.

3.      The site improvements shall comply with the plans and house elevations shown on the drawings, dated stamped June 29, 2005, and as revised by the applicant on 7/11/05 at the Zoning Board meeting.

4.      Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a letter signed and sealed by the engineer stating the improvements were constructed according to the plans approved by the Town of Shelburne.

5.      The proposed alterations to the garage shall be used for storage only.

6.      No alterations of surface drainage are part of this application or approval.

7.       As part of the revision to the building permit, the applicants shall submit a site plan indicating the limits of site construction.  The removal of trees and shrubs for this application shall only occur within the boundary of the limits of the construction plan.  Other than the trees removed for construction as indicated above, trees shall not be removed from the property unless the trees are dead, damaged, or severely diseased as determined by an arborist.

8.      Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicants shall submit a letter signed and sealed by the architect/engineer stating that the improvements were constructed according to the plans approved by the Town of Shelburne.

9.      The proposed alterations to the garage shall only be used only for storage.

10.  No alterations of surface drainage are part of this application or approval.

11.  Within sixty (60) days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office.  Memorandum will notify interested parties of approval and conditions.

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

 

Marcel Beaudin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Beaudin explained the proposal to increase volume on Lot #1 by 50%. In 1987, the parcel was subdivided into two lots, and the existing camp (on Lot #1) was to be demolished and replaced by a new house built farther from the road thereby decreasing the degree of noncompliance. The applicant plans to execute development plans at this time. An engineering plan will be done for drainage. The elevation will be raised to the 102’ mark.  There are Class 3 wetlands on the back area of the lot which will not be disturbed. Mr. Beaudin reviewed the meandering path taken by storm water runoff (water drains from the neighboring development, Yacht Haven, into the corner of the lot, then doubles back through the property, and out to a culvert under the road).  The drainage follows the lowest elevations on the property. Water from the house area will drain into the existing pattern. Grading will be done so no water will drain onto neighboring properties.

 

The Zoning Board received a staff report on the application, dated 7/11/05.  It was noted the following information is needed from the applicant:

1.                  Breakdown of the volumes for the proposed additional development;

2.                  Floor plan and elevations;

3.                  Information per the conditions stated in the April 16, 1997 approval by the Zoning Board relative to drainage, grading, tree removal, site inspection;

4.                  Identification on the site plan of trees to be removed or to remain on the site.

 

Russ Caffry representing the Bay Colony Estates Homeowners Association said the Association is not opposed to the development (the camp is an eyesore), but impact on the drainage system is a concern.  There is also a question of impact on wetlands and if filling in to increase the elevation is allowed by the town.  The Board suggested contacting the Agency of Natural Resources to answer questions about state and federal regulations regarding setbacks from wetlands. The town does not have wetlands setbacks.  The town’s floodplain regulations require 102’ elevation so filling in the property is allowed. The proposal meets the side and front yard setbacks. The 102’ setback from the lake is not met, but the proposal is not increasing the amount of noncompliance so the applicant can build the house (in fact, the house is being moved farther from the road so the amount of noncompliance is being reduced).  The applicant stated the house will be hooked to town sewer service.

 

Michael Koper, Bay Road, stated all the area properties drain onto his property and there is flooding.  Mr. Beaudin pointed out the town installed culverts and the lake backs up through the culverts which creates a problem (usually in the springtime).  There will be a bit more water due to the additional impervious surface of the house, but the percentage of increase is hardly measurable, and the drainage situation to the north will be improved with the drainage plan.  CEA (Civil Engineering Associates) will be doing a drainage plan. A storm water permit from the state is not required, but whatever is necessary will be done, stated Mr. Beaudin.  There was further discussion of flooding in the area (springtime is the worst time) and the need for residents to build up their properties with rocks. The residents agreed the culverts can handle rain storms, but sediment builds up in the culverts in the spring time.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Steve Waltien, SECOND by Gwen Webster, to approve CU05-20 and grant conditional use approval to Adam Beaudin for expansion of a noncomplying structure (replace camp with house on Lot #1) under Section 1620.2.2 and Section 1330.1.2 of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws on property at 805 Bay Road (Lot #1) which is in the Residential 1 District, the Lakeshore District, and the Floodplain Overlay District with conditions set forth as follows:

1.                  Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval to connect to town sewer service.

2.                  Site improvements (house pad, driveway, flood proofing, and such) shall be constructed as shown on the site plan and other documentation submitted by the applicant on June 6, 2005.

3.                  The landowner shall submit a grading/drainage plan for review concurrent with the submission of a building permit. This plan must be approved by town staff and the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grading/drainage plan shall be designed to:

a.      Maintain or reduce the amount of water flowing onto adjacent properties. The house construction and site grading, shall not increase the amount of water flowing onto adjacent properties.

b.      Provide adequate slope to drain stormwater to the south or east into the wet weather stream crossing the lot.

c.       Create a drainage swale in the front of the house along Bay Road to drain water south to the culvert under Bay Road.

d.      Allow the construction of a driveway without a culvert.

4.                  The following actions shall occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

a.      The applicant shall provide a statement from a civil engineer certifying the elevation of the finish floor of the house based upon the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The conditional use approval is based on the first floor of the house exceeding the base flood elevation of 102.0’ NGVD.

b.      The site grading and drainage shall be inspected and approved by the Town Engineer, the Highway Department, and Planning & Zoning staff.

 

c.       The landowner shall coordinate with the Planning & Zoning Office and the Shelburne Highway Department to schedule periodic site inspections during site grading and construction.

d.      The trees between the house and Lake Champlain (including the north side of Bay Road) shall not be removed other than as indicated by the applicant. This condition is not intended to prohibit the removal of dead or severely damaged or diseased trees.

5.                  The applicant shall verify volume calculations for the new house.

6.                  The original house configuration consisted of 15,947 c.f. (cubic feet) with a 50 percent expansion of 7,973 c.f. with a total expansion allowed of 23,921 c.f.

7.                  The proposal is for 23,921 c.f. leaving zero (0) cubic feet available for future expansion without exceeding the maximum 50% expansion of the outside dimensions of the original noncomplying building.

8.                  The site improvements shall comply with the plans and house elevations shown in drawings, dated stamped June 6, 2005.

9.                  The applicant shall submit a site plan indicating the limits of site construction.

10.              The applicant shall identify all existing trees on the property with a notation of the trees to be removed. The removal of trees and shrubs shall only occur within the boundary of the limits of the construction plan. Other than the trees removed for construction as indicated in the construction plan, trees shall not be removed from the property unless the trees are dead, damaged or severely diseased as determined by an arborist.

11.              Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a letter signed and sealed by the architect/engineer stating that the improvements were constructed according to the plans approved by the Town of Shelburne.

12.              Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office (this memorandum will notify interested parties of approval and conditions).

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

 

Marcel Beaudin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Beaudin explained the proposal to build a house on Lot #2 at 805 Bay Road. Lot #2 is 150’ x 230’ in size (approximately ¾ of an acre). The house could be located at the back of the lot without a variance, but the house would be very close to neighboring homes, stated Mr. Beaudin, therefore a variance is requested to allow a 58’ setback from the 102’ elevation.  Locating the house in the corner will put an encumbrance on the value of neighboring property.  Steve Waltien pointed out if there is an alternative unencumbered by geologic features, the Zoning Board may not have any ability to grant a variance.  There was discussion of variance criterion #2 regarding “reasonable use of the property” and moving the house to avoid a variance. It was noted if the house is located in the corner of the property, a smaller house will be built.

 

The Zoning Board received a staff report on the application, dated 7/11/05.

 

Doug Schneible, potential buyer of Lot #2, stated if the house is built in the corner of the lot, the neighbor’s picture window (Fisher house) will be in eyeshot. There is also concern about noise with the houses being located so near to each other. It is better to build the houses in a location where everyone has privacy and there is space for a small backyard, continued Mr. Schneible, adding the drainage ditch in the back corner (as a result of the berm built by the developer of Bay Colony and Yacht Haven) could impact the house and the yard (if the house is built in the back corner of the lot).  Marcel Beaudin noted the 102’ elevation is caused by the lake backing up through the culvert; it is an anomaly.  The physical circumstance on the property is the 102’ elevation. It is there and does not allow reasonable use of the property without a variance, stated Mr. Beaudin.

 

Mike Koper, Bay Road, spoke in favor of variances, adding people should be able to develop their property to the best of their ability.

 

Russ Caffry, Spinnaker Lane, asked about mitigation of impacts on the storm water drainage system, mentioning the 4” PVC drain pipe along the road which drains into the culvert. Mr. Beaudin stated the pipe goes under the Dixon driveway and will not be disturbed. The meandering 102’ elevation is the only one between the LaPlatte River and the train overpass. It was noted the road would flood before it was rebuilt by the town.

 

The Zoning Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session following the regular meeting. After the deliberative session, the Board returned with the following motion:

 

MOTION by Steve Waltien, SECOND by Milton Edelman, to approve V05-21 and grant a variance to reduce the required setback from 100’ to 58’ from the 102 foot elevation as specified in Section 1340.1 on property at 805 Bay Road, Lot #2, in the Residential 1 District (Article V), the Lakeshore District (Article XIII), and the Floodplain Overlay District (Article XIV); approval is required under Section 1620.2.2 and Section 1340.1 of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval to connect to town sewer service.

1.      Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval to connect to town sewer service.

2.      Site improvements (house pad, driveway, flood proofing, and such) shall be constructed as shown on the site plan and other documentation submitted by the applicant on June 6, 2005.

3.      The landowner shall submit a grading/drainage plan for review concurrent with the submission of a building permit. This plan must be approved by town staff and the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. The grading/drainage plan shall be designed to:

a.      Maintain or reduce the amount of water flowing onto adjacent properties. The house construction and site grading, shall not increase the amount of water flowing onto adjacent properties.

b.      Provide adequate slope to drain stormwater to the south or east into the wet weather stream crossing the lot.

c.       Create a drainage swale in the front of the house along Bay Road to drain water south to the culvert under Bay Road.

d.      Allow the construction of a driveway without a culvert.

4.      The following actions shall occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

a.      The applicant shall provide a statement from a civil engineer certifying the elevation of the finish floor of the house based upon the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The conditional use approval is based on the first floor of the house exceeding the base flood elevation of 102.0’ NGVD.

b.      The site grading and drainage shall be inspected and approved by the Town Engineer, the Highway Department, and Planning & Zoning staff.

c.       The landowner shall coordinate with the Planning & Zoning Office and the Shelburne Highway Department to schedule periodic site inspections during site grading and construction.

d.      The trees between the house and Lake Champlain (including the north side of Bay Road) shall not be removed other than as indicated by the applicant. This condition is not intended to prohibit the removal of dead or severely damaged or diseased trees.

5.      The applicant shall verify volume calculations by a registered architect or engineer for the new dwelling.

6.      The applicant shall be limited to 37,000 cubic feet for the new dwelling.

7.      The applicant shall limit the fill only an area large enough to support the dwelling, driveway and a small area (15 ft.) surrounding the dwelling.

8.      The applicant shall submit a site plan indicating the limits of site construction.

9.      The applicant shall identify all existing trees on the property with a notation of the trees to be removed. The removal of trees and shrubs shall only occur within the boundary of the limits of the construction plan. Other than the trees removed for construction as indicated in the construction plan, trees shall not be removed from the property unless the trees are dead, damaged or severely diseased as determined by an arborist.

10.  Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a letter signed and sealed by the architect/engineer stating that the improvements were constructed according to the plans approved by the Town of Shelburne.

11.  Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office (this memorandum will notify interested parties of approval and conditions).

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

  

 

David McNees appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. McNees stated his request for outdoor seats is in response to requests from Shelburne residents. The restaurant is approved for 70 seats (state approval) and the 10 outside seats will not increase the capacity of the kitchen or the restaurant (i.e. 10 seats outside replace 10 seats inside the restaurant).  Gwen Webster expressed concern that the Design Review Committee will have a problem with seating in front of a building. Ms. Webster preferred the seating be located on the north side of the building, noting her desire to avoid becoming “the Church Street Marketplace”. Ms. Webster said she would not want to see the seating or people dining outside from the street.  It was noted the regulations say outdoor seating must be screened from the road and adjacent properties (umbrellas and people should not be in open view). Mr. McNees stated there will be a hedge and flagstone in front as well as gardens. The side area is only four feet wide and is not attractive for seating (does not get the sun). There are beautiful gardens in the front of the building.  There was further discussion of the outdoor seating, such as locating the seating on the side of the building and having a decorative gate to block the view from the road. The applicant can have flagstone and gardens in the front of the building with benches to sit on while waiting for a table.

 

The Zoning Board received a staff report on the application, dated 7/11/05.

 

None.

 

The applicant will revise the site plan to show seating, dimensions, elevations, fencing, and landscaping.

 

MOTION by Tom Koerner, SECOND by Steve Waltien, to continue CU05-22 (97 Falls Road, David McNees d/b/a Sauce Bistro) until 7/18/05.

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

            None.

 

        

           

 

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

 

 

 

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 8th day of August for the meeting of July 11, 2005.

 

 

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                    Gwen Webster, Vice Chair

 

 

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Steve Waltien                                                   Boris Funtow

 

 

 

_________________________________     

Milton Edelman

 

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

ADMINISTRATION:           Cindy Tyminski, Acting Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Kenneth Albert, Scott Prom, Steve Selin, Stuart Bennett, David McNees, Carol Wellings, Emily Highland, Peter Richardson, David Webster, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m., and introductions were made.

 

Mr. Koerner explained the deliberative process (deliberative session may be held following the regular meeting) and noted that Mr. Waltien will recuse himself during the Shelburne Vineyards application and Ms. Webster will recuse herself during the Housing Strategies, Inc. application leaving only three members to take action on the application(s) necessitating a unanimous affirmative vote for approval.  Applicants can elect to postpone their hearing until a full board is present.

David McNees, co-owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

Mr. Koerner reviewed the request for outside seating at Sauce Bistro on Falls Road, noting a previous application for outdoor seating in the front of the building was not approved. The applicant has submitted a new site plan.

Mr. McNees showed a rendering of the proposed 14’ x 50’ at-grade patio on the north side of the building and explained the proposal for five outside tables (up to 20 seats). A fieldstone patio will be installed in the front of the building. The patio will be screened with a combination of fencing and lattice with greenery on top. The patio cannot be attached to the side of the building because the air conditioning unit and plantings are located there. The back door of the building opens onto the patio.  The fence will enclose three sides of the patio.

 

There was lengthy discussion of the height of the fence and screening view of patrons on the patio (town regulations do not allow restaurant patrons to be readily seen while dining as this is considered a form of advertising). Mr. McNees explained seeing people on the patio is desirable so the space does not appear to be a storage area. Mr. Edelman felt a five foot high fence would provide sufficient screening. There was further discussion of advertising versus viewing people doing normal and expected activities in the village. There was mention of umbrellas shading the tables. The zoning regulations related to food service establishments were reviewed. The applicant was urged to screen the activity on the patio. Mr. Koerner pointed out the proposal is designed to screen activity from view from the road and adjacent properties. Mr. McNees added the fence will be solid, four foot high with lattice and plantings on top. There will be a gate in front for emergency access. The fieldstone in front will be moved toward the patio. Ms. Webster suggested a fieldstone walkway to the gate be added as well.

Marge Sharp asked about a lighting plan. Mr. McNees stated low-level lights will be hidden and point down toward the tables from the top of the fence. Nothing will be seen from the street. The restaurant closes at 9:30 p.m. The neighbor to the north of the restaurant ha reviewed the proposal.

Peter Richardson expressed interest in a minimum standard regarding fence height, noting the Shelburne Inn will likely be forthcoming with an application. Mr. Richardson pointed out if a deck is three feet off the ground and a six foot fence is added, the total height of the patio and fence would be nine feet which may or may not be acceptable in the village.

MOTION by Mr. Koerner, seconded by Mr. Edelman, to grant conditional use approval to David McNees of Sauce Bistro for the addition of an outdoor patio area with seating that does not increase the existing approved seating with the following conditions:

1.      Consumption of food and beverages shall be screened from adjacent properties.

2.      The Design Review Committee will work with Sauce Bistro regarding design of the screening fence around three sides of the proposed 14’ x 50’ outdoor patio.

3.      Total allowable restaurant seats are 70 seats.

4.      No outdoor speakers.

5.       Outdoor lighting should comply with the Town of Shelburne Bylaws and no light shall shine from within the property onto adjacent properties.

6.      Within sixty (60) days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office.

 

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

Mr. Waltien recused himself. Kenneth Albert, Scott Prom, owners, and Steve Selin, architect, appeared on behalf of the application.

Mr. Koerner reviewed the request for conditional use approval under the Integrated Agriculture bylaw. An earlier application and zoning bylaw changes to allow integrated agricultural activities were also reviewed.

 

Ken Albert introduced Scott Prom, wine maker and partner, and Mr. Selin, architect. Mr. Albert explained the proposal for a vineyard and winery to grow and purchase grapes for processing and sale of wine. A 126’ x 144’ structure will be built to accommodate the business. Twenty percent of the area will be devoted to retail, 20% for storage, and 50% for processing grapes into wine. Ms. Tyminski confirmed that the growing, harvesting and processing of grapes are permitted uses.  Mr. Albert briefly reviewed revenue criteria that included deriving the major revenue (50-60 percent) from the sale of wine and/or grapes as the primary business. Producing alcoholic products is highly regulated by both the state and federal government, and revenue information from this activity can be provided to the town. There will be commercial production of crops to include six acres of grapevines on Meach Cove property and five acres of vines on-site. Additional crops will be purchased via contracted grape acreage elsewhere in the state. It will be four to five years before the new plantings are at full production, stated Mr. Albert.

 

The applicant submitted a two-page description of the Integrated Agriculture Zoning Bylaw Amendments, and mentioned the following:

 

In response to a question regarding winter operation, Mr. Albert explained grapes are harvested in September and October followed by processing into wine. Processing involves fermenting the grapes, racking, blending, aging, and bottling the wine. It is hoped people come for tours during the winter. In April, the grapevines are pruned. There is storage for bulk bottles (100 cases per pallet). There is no plan to ship wine outside of the state.

 

Mr. Koerner asked for clarification of the small building shown on the site plan. Mr. Albert explained the building is for storage at some point in the future. There are no plans for construction as yet.

Mr. Edelman asked how the applicant equates meetings and weddings with hosting educational and cultural events. Mr. Albert stated weddings and meetings are traditional events at farms and vineyards. There will be parking for 25 cars to accommodate small weddings. There are no formal plans to promote weddings, and a permanent tent for weddings will not be installed. The proper permits will be secured from the town for the events.

Mr. Koerner asked when planting will occur. Mr. Albert stated 2.5 acres will be prepared next spring. Shelburne Vineyards is a certified organic vineyard and the goal is to continue that practice at the new site. Weed control is an issue. Construction will begin in October, 2005, and the tasting room will open summer, 2006.

Steve Waltien spoke in support of the use of the property. Mr. Waltien urged that existing vegetation providing screening between properties be maintained. The row of trees on the south side of Route 7 screens the operation as well. Mr. Albert will visit Mr. Waltien’s property to view the vegetation.

 

David Webster mentioned depending on where the plantings are relative to Route 7, the vines may need protection from the dirt and traffic.

 

Marge Sharp asked how the applicant will handle underaged visitors in the wine tasting room. Mr. Albert stated the vineyard is under state regulations and must comply with the same rules regarding alcoholic beverages as a restaurant. Shelburne Vineyards will carefully monitor minors on the site.

MOTION by Ms. Webster, seconded by Mr. Edelman, to grant conditional use approval of the application by Kenneth Albert, Shelburne Vineyards, Meach Cove Properties, owner, to operate a vineyard and winery under the newly adopted bylaws for Integrated Agriculture with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 07/18/05, and s follows:

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 June 22, 2004. The above-mentioned plan was submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Board during the public hearing on July 18, 2005 as amended.

2.      The growing, processing and sale of wine are permitted agricultural uses.

3.      The sale of items related items complementary to the sale of wine is allowed as an integrated agricultural use.  Such items may include corkscrews, wineglasses, wine, books, logo-ed T-shirts, and decanters.

4.      The hosting of occasional meetings and festivals related to the grapes and harvest seasons is allowed as an integrated agricultural use.  Such activities may include small community celebrations and seasonal activities.

5.      Guided tours are allowed as an integrated agricultural use.

6.      Wine sampling and tasting activities are allowed as an integrated agricultural use.

7.      If traffic issues arise, the Zoning Coordinator may determine that the applicant needs to return to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for reevaluation.

8.      No outdoor speakers are permitted.

9.      Outdoor lighting should comply with the Town of Shelburne Bylaws and there shall be no light emitted from the property onto adjacent properties.

9.  Within sixty (60) days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “MEMORANDUM OF MUNICIPAL ACTION” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office.

VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried.

Mr. Waltien returned to the Zoning Board.

 

Peter Richardson, Housing Strategies, Inc., appeared on behalf of the application. Ms. Webster recused herself. Mr. Waltien disclosed he has done business with Larry Williams in the past. It was the consensus of the Zoning Board that there was not a conflict of interest.

Mr. Koerner reviewed the Staff Report and noted the three structures include the former Shelburne Inn, motel and a small structure at 11 Falls Road.

Peter Richardson stated the property was purchased from the Smith family in January, 2005. There are two primary structures on site. The plan is to convert space in the former Shelburne Inn building to commercial mixed uses (restaurant, retail/commercial and office space), and the motel to 14 residential units (one and two bedroom flats, and three bedroom up/down town houses). The newly adopted zoning allows for the proposal (e.g. redevelopment PUD) with the existing setbacks and proposed density. There is a 16’ right-of-way on the Falls Road property to the Shelburnewood Mobile Home Park. Discussions are on-going with the current park owners, prospective purchasers, and park residents regarding access. Two options for parking on the Falls Road property have been submitted.  There is a deck proposed for outside restaurant seating on the south side of the Inn building.

 

There was discussion of setbacks allowed by the new zoning bylaw (existing or 7.5’ from the property line, but no less than existing), the proximity of the Falls Road building to the Webster property (approximately two feet and there are no plans for new construction at this time), and height restrictions related to the new zoning amendments (still under discussion/consideration by the Selectboard).

 

Mr. Edelman pointed out with the new zoning, volume can increase by 25 percent. Mr. Edelman asked if the two lots will be merged. Mr. Richardson stated the two separate lots are bound together by a single PUD. The PUD is a redevelopment tool that allows for a 25% expansion of the existing footprint. Mr. Edelman expressed concern that if the total expansion volume is based on combined square footage and a separate lot is sold and the building torn down, then the expanded volume will exceed allowances. Mr. Richardson explained that there is a total of 65,000 square feet for both lots. The proposal includes 1,200 s.f. of modifications/improvements to the existing buildings. New buildings are not proposed. Approvals and permits would be needed to demolish a building per the regulations.

Mr. Richardson explained the proposal for the façade of the motel and addition of a new deck on the Inn. The “bump-out” will create some relief for the motel in the front and rear. The condos will be marketed to empty nesters or young professionals. This is not a strong site for young families. Target price is middle to top end. There is a front porch on the Inn (existing). The proposal will recreate the original look of the Inn (circa 1905) which was more substantial and grand. There is no intent to serve food or drinks on the front porch. The proposed 10’ x 42’ deck for restaurant service will be on the side of the functions room. Twenty outdoor seats are proposed.

In response to questions regarding the 16’ right-of-way, Mr. Richardson reviewed the legal access owned by the Inn. Tax maps show the access running east-west to Shelburne Road, but the State of Vermont and Town of Shelburne redefined the curb cut at some point and blocked the access. The curb cut has since disappeared. Negotiations with the state to move the opening at the sign 15’ to the south to provide access to Falls Road are underway. A new curb cut has not been secured as yet. The access is a legal right-of-way. If a loop road is created, the Falls Road structure will be removed. Mr. Koerner asked if 11 Falls Road would be available for purchase by the trailer park owner. Mr. Richardson stated there are no such plans at this time and no deals with prospective owners. Mr. Koerner reviewed a letter from the Shelburne Fire Chief to the Town Planner regarding the Shelburne Inn access (will not accommodate the fire fighting apparatus). Also, the building should have sprinklers installed (100% coverage including the attics).

There was discussion of options related to parking at the existing Falls Road building (one option is to have four spaces in front of the building, and the remainder to the side), assumptions based on the location of the mobile home park access, and the applicant’s suggestion to move the curb cut closer to the intersection.

It was noted the former owners of the Inn/motel rented motel rooms about a year or more ago. The restaurant in the Inn last operated in the early 1990s. The applicant stated traffic information was included in the application (traffic studies not submitted). Traffic studies show activity will not impact the neighborhood. There is consideration for parking in back. Mr. Waltien observed if 16 parking spaces at 11 Falls Road are lost, there is a significant problem. Mr. Richardson stressed there is no plan to sell or change the lot. Widening the access to 24’ will provide sufficient room and preserve the parking spaces.

 

Mr. Edelman asked about a landscaping plan for the north side of the motel. Mr. Richardson explained there is some vegetation growing to the eves of the building already.

Gwen Webster pointed out the new PUD redevelopment bylaw does not address combined lots. Ms. Webster expressed her belief that the lots will be merged. Ms. Webster clarified the entire village has National Register designation, not just Shelburne Inn. Ms. Webster commented that the proposed motel condo design looks like a ski lodge, which is not appropriate in the Village Core. Trees along Route 7 will be a hazard and will obscure the view from Mr. Bennett’s driveway. Mr. Richardson said if the street trees obscure the line of sight, they can be adjusted.

David Webster, abutting neighbor, expressed concern about the parking configuration of four parking spaces at 11 Falls Road and parking in the public right-of-way. There needs to be a demarcation of the parking. Mr. Richardson explained the parking plans include two options based on the assumption of a new right-of-way. Parking must be approved by the town. A survey of the property showing parking and the right-of-way was shown. Mr. Webster noted the property is the only one impacted by the new zoning regulation.

Stuart Bennett stated his office is at the northwest corner of the back of the motel. Mr. Bennett contended if the motel building did not already exist, the proposed project would not be approved by the town. If the proposal is approved, Mr. Bennett said he will have 14 new neighbors (condo owners), and asked if restrictions can be placed on the condo owners (and is concerned about the impact on privacy). Mr. Richardson noted discussions have been on-going with Mr. Bennett. There is opportunity for an attractive fence and the plan can be configured to avoid impact on Mr. Bennett’s driveway.  Mr. Bennett said that his concerns include impact on his business and clients, the character of the neighborhood, neighbors’ activities, security and lighting for his employees and tenants, roof pitches and water drainage issues. The Town raised a manhole north of his driveway and now the surface water runoff goes onto his property resulting in two to three feet of water in his basement, stated Mr. Bennett. Storm water improvements are needed. Mr. Richardson promised to try to address Mr. Bennett’s concerns, but the buildings are existing. New building construction is not planned. Mr. Waltien encouraged continued discussion between neighbors, noting the Zoning Board has adjudicated in favor of neighbors who believe they will be adversely impacted.

 

Mr. Koerner requested for the next meeting the applicant provide the next design generation of the proposal in a size large enough for posting. The design should show condo activity shifted from the back to the interior of the site. Mr. Richardson will forward a copy of the traffic study to staff.

 

MOTION by Mr. Koerner, seconded by Mr. Waltien, to continue the public hearing for CU05-24 and schedule a site visit on 08/08/05 at 6:00 p.m. (meet at Shelburne Inn). VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried.

 

Ms. Webster rejoined the Zoning Board.

            None.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 8th day of August for the meeting of July 18, 2005.

 

 

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                    Gwen Webster, Vice Chair

 

 

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Steve Waltien                                                   Boris Funtow