    |
  |
        |
|
|
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes TOWN OF SHELBURNE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Koerner, Chairperson; Boris Funtow, Steve Waltien, Gwen Webster. (Milton Edelman was absent.) ADMINISTRATION: Cindy Tyminski, Zoning Administrator. OTHERS PRESENT: David Marshall, Kenneth Cartularo, Jacques Landry, John Blanchard, Stuart Bennett, Eric Smith, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News). [Note: Minutes transcribed from audio tape.] 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and noted only four of the five member board were in attendance. Approval of an application requires three affirmative votes. The hearing process was explained. It was noted deliberative session may be held at the end of the regular meeting. 2. OLD BUSINESS Conditional Use Review: Shelburne Inn and Motel renovation complex Mr. Koerner briefly reviewed the conditional use application for renovation of the Shelburne Inn and Motel by Peter Richardson and Catamount. Findings of Fact and conditions of the application were approved by the Board. Stuart Bennett, abutting neighbor, recalled discussion during the public hearings regarding the west side porch of the condo units which would be screened. The condominiums are to the north of Mr. Bennett’s property. The back doors of the condos will have two steps down to grade. Mr. Koerner stated the Zoning Board will discuss Mr. Bennett’s concerns at the end of the meeting. 3. NEW BUSINESS CU05-27: Application by Kenneth Cartularo of Buono Appettito Corporation for Conditional Use approval to change the use from professional offices (§820.10) to specialty retail and expand and modify a noncomplying structure (§1620.2) with the addition of a loading dock on property at 3182 Shelburne Road in the Residential-Commercial (Article VIII) District David Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, and Kenneth Cartularo appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner reviewed the request by Kenneth Cartularo of Buono Appettito to change the use from professional offices to specialty retail. An older building to the south of the restaurant was removed and rebuilt. The applicant is seeking the addition of a loading dock. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Marshall explained past requests for a variance when the Route 7 widening project claimed a portion of the existing parking lot. The variance was granted. Formalization of the footprint and a variance for lot coverage for the same square footage and reconstruction of the south building were also granted. Mr. Marshall showed the location of the parking and the southerly building on the site plan. The south building is permitted for 1,000 square feet of retail and 1,000 square feet of professional office, with one office and an apartment upstairs. This application proposes to convert the entire first floor to specialty retail. The applicant has received Planning Commission approval. Issues before the Zoning Board include:
There was discussion of changes in hours of operation proposed for the specialty retail use (standard 9:00 am – 5:00 pm, Saturday 11:00 am – 4:00 pm). There are no changes proposed to outdoor lighting or noise. Deliveries will be two or three times per month. The kitchen design show room (kitchen cabinetry) was explained. There will be no change to the septic. A sign permit application needs to be submitted to the Zoning Coordinator for comment. Mr. Marshall said the landscape plan has been approved. There will be 14 parking spaces on the south side of the building. Ms. Webster asked for clarification regarding parking spaces for the apartment tenants. Mr. Marshall explained the Planning Commission required 14 parking spaces for the specialty retail space. Mr. Waltien asked if there is shared parking with the Econo-Lodge. Mr. Marshall stated the shared access between businesses would be fenced off and the entry point eliminated. There are two access points to the restaurant and south building (Route 7 and Champlain Drive). Mr. Funtow asked for clarification regarding a complete plan for building coverage and lot coverage. Mr. Marshall stated the proposed loading dock is just paving. There is to be an even swap of green space for paving as indicated on the site plan. There is no change from previous approval. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Change of Use and Add Loading Dock, 3182 Shelburne Road, Buono Appettito Corp./Cartularo (CU05-27) MOTION by Ms. Webster, seconded by Steve Waltien, to approve CU05-27 (conditional use approval) by Buono Appettito Corporation, 3198 Shelburne Road, for a change from professional office use to specialty retail as proposed with conditions as noted in the Staff Report and as follows:
VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. CU05-29: Application by Jack Landry of Coastal Real Estate LLC to increase the intensity of use in Tenneybrook Square by increasing the number of units to nine without increasing the square footage of the building, and changing from the existing use of retail (§820.10) to a recreational use (§820.25) to accommodate the Adams School of Dance on property located at 3762 Shelburne Road in the Residential-Commercial (Article VIII) District Jack Landry, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner read the warned notice of hearing for the proposed Adams School of Dance at Tenneybrook Square. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Landry explained a previous recreational use, Gym Star, had been changed to retail use space, and now the request is to return to the recreational use. The proposed space is located to the right of Edward Jones. Hours of operation are 4:00 pm – 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Mr. Landry stated a second part of the application is to split 2,600 square foot of space to the left of Edward Jones. A health food store (Terra Linda’s Market) will occupy 1,300 square foot on the left side, and the remaining 1,300 square foot space on the right side will be vacant (available for retail use). Ms. Tyminski noted the applicant is increasing the number of units from eight to nine (eight units were approved one month ago). The original development had six spaces. The current proposal does not change the existing square footage or parking space requirements. There was discussion of the original six spaces approved October 1984 Ms Tyminski pointed out no cap on the number of spaces was imposed at any time. The Board can approve or deny each piece of the application. There was also discussion of the change of use from recreational to retail and the number and layout of bathrooms in the units. Mr. Landry said that each space has a bathroom and all are handicap accessible. Labor and Industry Agency conducted a site visit for the dance studio. The proposal received approval from the state for electrical and fire permits. The proposal will create a vestibule and bathroom for each of the new spaces. Sewer allocation is in place and was based on square footage. Mr. Landry explained that the building will not be broken down any more than proposed. It appears the smaller uses are more conducive to being rented versus larger spaces. Once the health food store moves in, the development will be down to one 1,300 square foot retail space vacancy. Mt. Funtow noted the zoning regulation for a retail establishment is §820.10. Mr. Koerner asked if the hours of operation will change. Mr. Landry explained the hours of operation for the various businesses and use of the parking spaces. Mr. Funtow asked for clarification on parking space calculations. Ms. Tyminski stated the center was approved for retail parking spaces which is the most restrictive. There is no issue with the parking calculations. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Increase Intensity of Use and Change of Use, Tennybrook Square, 3762 Shelburne Road, Coastal Real Estate/Landry (CU05-29) MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve CU05-29, conditional use application by Jacques Landry of Coastal Real Estate LLC for 3762 Shelburne Road, Tenneybrook Square, to increase the intensity of use in the number of units to nine with no change in square footage, and to change the existing retail use to recreational use to accommodate the Adams School of Dance subject to conditions as set forth in the Staff Report and as follows:
4. 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 (4-0); motion carried. CU05-30: Application by Kim Hussels to expand a non-complying structure (§1620.2) with an addition on an existing garage, and to remove a portion of the existing deck and driveway (thereby reducing lot coverage) on property at 160 Maple Leaf Lane in the Residential-Commercial (Article VIII) District Kim Hussels, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner read the request for an addition to an existing garage and removal of a portion of an existing deck and driveway to reduce the lot coverage. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Hussels reviewed the site plan, noting the roof line of the garage will be changed to match the existing structure. The portion of the garage set back one foot from the existing house will be brought forward to match the house. An 8’ shed will be added to the back of the house. A 14’ x 24’ portion of the paved driveway and a section of the existing deck will be removed to reduce lot coverage (from 33% to 30%). The shed will be for storage. The stairs will be moved. Ms. Tyminski noted the current structure is a non-complying structure and will not be made more non-complying by the proposal. The pool was never permitted, but is grandfathered. The house was built in 1966. The building and lot coverage calculations are included in the application. Mr. Hussels is removing some of the building and paved areas to reduce lot coverage. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Addition to Garage and Remove Portion of Deck and Driveway Paving, 160 Maple Leaf Lane, Hussels (CU05-30) MOTION by Mr. Funtow, seconded by Ms. Webster, to approve CU05-30, conditional use application by Kim Hussels to expand a non-complying structure at 160 Maple Leaf Lane and to modify a noncomplying structure as noted in the site plan with the net effect being a reduction in the overall lot coverage (building coverage will remain the same with the changes) with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report and as follows: 1. The changes to and uses of the site shall occur as indicated on the site plan as submitted, prepared by the applicant, and date stamped. The above-mentioned plan was submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Board during the public hearing on 09/12/05. 2. The existing portions of the deck and driveway shall be removed as indicated on the submitted plans thereby reducing the lot coverage to 30 percent. The building coverage shall be maintained at 15 percent. 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 (4-0); motion carried. V/CU05-31: Application by John Blanchard to expand a non-complying structure (§1620.2) with a den addition on an existing residential structure, and request for a variance to increase building coverage from 20 percent to 23 percent on property at 61 Lakeview Drive in the Residential-Commercial (Article VIII) District John Blanchard, owner, appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT Mr. Koerner read the warned application by John Blanchard to expand a non-complying structure with a den addition on an existing residential structure. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Blanchard gave a brief history of the Lighting House property, the Route 7 construction project, and purchase of a duplex for additional storage space. The three-bedroom duplex needs updating. The proposal is to add a den. It was determined that Conditional Use and Variance approvals are required. Mr. Blanchard expanded this structure in 2004 and obtained Conditional Use approval at this time. Construction has already begun on this proposal, but was ceased. Ms. Tyminski explained a letter, dated 08/03/05, and advised Mr. Blanchard to discontinue construction, which at that point was just a foundation. By 08/18/05, the ZC noted that work had continued on the addition, without a permit and Zoning Board approval. A violation notice was filed. Mr. Blanchard stated the project is not complete yet. The roof is not done. Interior work is not done. When the letter from the Zoning Coordinator was received, work was stopped. What is remaining is the building coverage issue. The proposed expansion made a variance necessary. Ms. Webster asked what the building coverage was prior to the renovation. Ms. Tyminski noted lot coverage and building coverage calculations are on page three of the Staff Report. Mr. Blanchard suggested taking a strip of land from the Lighting House and adding that to the duplex land. Ms. Tyminski pointed out the Lighting House is also a non-complying lot which cannot be made more non-complying by making the lot smaller. Mr. Waltien asked who was doing the building construction. Mr. Blanchard said it was his responsibility for acquiring the building permits. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, Expansion of a non-complying structure (§1620.2) with a den addition on an existing residential structure, and request for a variance to increase building coverage from 20 percent to 23 percent. MOTION by Mr. Koerner, seconded by Mr. Waltien to continue CU05-30, conditional use and variance application to 9/19/2005. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. 4. DELIBERATIVE SESSION 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koerner, seconded by Funtow, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: 4-0. Minutes transcribed from tape and respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. Dated at Shelburne, Vermont, this 3rd day of October 2005 for the meeting on September 12, 2005. _________________________________ _________________________________ Thomas Koerner, Chair Gwen Webster _________________________________ _________________________________ Steve Waltien Boris Funtow _________________________________ Milton Edelman TOWN OF SHELBURNE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Koerner, Chairperson; Boris Funtow, Steve Waltien. (Gwen Webster and Milton Edelman were absent.) ADMINISTRATION: Cindy Tyminski, Zoning Administrator. OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Lavalette, Jeff Shedd, Robert Sucileur, Joe Lavalette, John Blanchard, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News). 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., and noted with only three of the five member board in attendance a unanimous decision is needed for approval of an application. Applicants have the option to postpone their application until the full board is present. The hearing process was explained. Mr. Koerner stated deliberative session may be held following the regular meeting, and minutes and Findings of Fact may be covered following deliberative session. 2. OLD BUSINESS V/CU05-31: Variance and Conditional Use application by John Blanchard to expand a noncomplying structure (§1620.2) for a den addition onto an existing residential structure and to increase building coverage from 20% to 23% on property at 61 Lakeview Drive in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII) John Blanchard appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Zoning Board received staff reports on the application, dated 9/12/05 and 9/19/05. APPLICANT COMMENTS Mr. Blanchard said he is actively investigating conditional use options. An engineering firm has been retained to determine square footage. Transferring property from the adjacent lot and doing a boundary line adjustment is being researched. Also, discussions are ongoing with Spillanes regarding transfer of property. Further information will be forthcoming. The Board clarified for the applicant that a property can not be brought into compliance by making another property more noncomplying. Following discussion about separating the conditional use and variance portions of the application, and taking action on only one portion, it was decided the application as warned (i.e. conditional use and variance request) must be addressed. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Variance/Conditional Use, Den Addition & Increase Building Coverage, 61 Lakeview Drive, Blanchard (CU/V05-31). MOTION by Mr. Waltien, SECOND by Mr. Funtow, to continue the variance and conditional use application by John Blanchard for 61 Lakeview Drive until 10/3/05. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. 3. NEW BUSINESS V05-35: Variance application by Ray Pecor (owner), Cynthia & Jeffrey Shedd (owner), and VTrans (applicant) to reduce the side yard setback from 20’ to five feet for an existing shed that must be relocated on property at 35 Penny Lane in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII) as a result of the Route 7 construction Cynthia & Jeff Shedd and Bob Sucileur (Route 7 construction project engineer) appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Board received a staff report on the application, dated 9/19/05. APPLICANT COMMENTS Cynthia Shedd read a summary of points outlining the reasons for the relocation of the storage shed at 35 Penny Lane. Ms. Shedd explained the shed was to be moved with the Route 7 construction project, but it would have been located too close to the road and would likely sustain damage from road salt and water run off. Also, a potential safety hazard would have been created by the impact on sight distance. The shed is an asset to the property. The request is to relocate the shed closer to the house on the lot. The shed will be close to the dirt road behind the property. Photographs of the shed in its present location and the preferred location were shown. It was noted approximately half of the front yard of the subject property was claimed by the Route 7 project. Plans for the Route 7 project by the applicant’s property were reviewed. It was noted the property owner (Ray Pecor) was compensated for the claimed property. It was also noted Mr. Pecor approves of the request being presented by the Shedds. Ms. Shedd emphasized her desire to have the property look nice, be a desirable place to live, and not lose value. Moving the shed to the proposed area will allow the shed to be functional. The shed will have electric power. The mobile home on the property is currently occupied. Where the shed is presently located impacts sight distance. Jeff Shedd pointed out the proposed location of the shed is the same distance from the dirt road as other sheds along the road. There was discussion of the property being handled as part of a Planned Unit Development or as a separate lot. Ms. Tyminski noted the mobile home park does have a perimeter buffer of land. The shed under discussion has been on the property for over thirty years. Mr. Funtow stated a site plan showing the entire lot (PRD) is needed. Also, if the shed in the new location is no closer to the lot line than other existing sheds, there is no increase in noncompliance. The PRD is “grandfathered” so the entire park should be viewed as one lot, stated Mr. Funtow, and the shed relocation can then be handled as a conditional use request rather than a variance. Tom Koerner further explained the Board can consider the matter as one lot with over 40 residential units, and if the applicant can document there is an existing shed closer to the property line than what is being proposed, then there will be no increase in noncompliance and a variance is not needed. Cindy Tyminski clarified the Board will have to act on the applicant as submitted and warned. The applicant will have to submit a conditional use application. PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Variance, Shed Relocation, 35 Penny Lane, Pecor/Shedd/VTrans (V05-35) The applicant withdrew the variance application and will proceed with a conditional use application. V/CU05-32: Variance and Conditional Use application by George and Linda Lavalette to expand a noncomplying structure (§1620.2) and reduce the side yard setback from 15’ to five feet on property at 465 Bay Road in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII) Joe and Linda Lavalette appeared on behalf of the application. STAFF REPORT The Board received a staff report on the application, dated 9/19/05. The staff report was corrected to reflect 465 Bay Road as the subject property. Tom Koerner reviewed the application for a variance and condition use approval. APPLICANT COMMENTS Linda Lavalette explained she owns both 451 Bay Road and 465 Bay Road (adjacent property) which is presently occupied by her son, Joe Lavalette, and his family. Ms. Lavalette read a statement describing the requested 20’ x 14’ addition to the house at 465 Bay Road to provide more living space and storage in the house. Adding a second floor to the existing structure is not feasible due to the foundation of the house (will not support a second story) and physical limitations of the occupant. The proposed addition can not be more than 14’ deep to avoid impact on water drainage in the area. Other structures on the road are located within the setback, noted Ms. Lavalette. The property lines angle dramatically, making one corner of the property close to the boundary line. The lots run perpendicular to Bay Road. The addition will allow more storage space, an additional bedroom, and change to the entryway to the house. There was discussion of moving the addition over by three feet to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Funtow pointed out all five variance criteria must be met for approval, and it appears there may be options to do the proposed additions without the need for a variance. The applicant expressed concern about drifting snow on the back and side of the house, and snow build up in the “jog” of the building and on the roof if the proposed addition is offset as suggested. The land slopes toward the lake, and if the building addition is moved three feet, a pocket is created for water build up. Tom Koerner suggested a swale can be installed to avoid water build up on the property. Mr. Koerner also suggested the roof lines be slightly separated to make the connection of the existing roof with the roof on the addition better. The same applies to the connection of old and new foundation. Ms. Lavalette showed plans for a 16’ x 14’ addition which would only require conditional use approval (referred to as “Plan B”). Cindy Tyminski mentioned the lot coverage is over the maximum square footage for a residence. The last conditional use approval was for a bait shop with parking. Fifteen years ago the site was converted to a residence. In addition, the deeds are different with regard to lot size as compared to the Grand List. There was discussion of the lot measurements and lot coverage. The Lavalettes stated that lot dimensions are 75’ x 319’. It was noted that .4 acre is recorded on the tax map, Grand List, and with the assessor’s office. There was further discussion of the lot and driveway measurements. The driveway is 24’ x 86’ (2,064 s.f.). The existing house is 41’ x 20’ (820 s.f.). With the 14’ x 16’ addition, it appears the lot coverage is not exceeded. Ms. Tyminski suggested the Board make a condition of approval that before a building permit is secured, the applicant demonstrate there is less than 20% lot coverage. The area has not been surveyed and the lot sizes were from calculations. Tom Koerner suggested the property owner have the property surveyed by a licensed surveyor at some point in time. The applicant withdrew the request for a variance and requested conditional use approval for an new option (“Plan B”) that did not require a variance. Plan B requests a14’ x 16’ addition onto a noncomplying structure. Plan “B” was date stamped and entered into the record. Tom Koerner pointed out the approval is subject to lot coverage not exceeding the maximum (20%). Also, drawings must be submitted showing elevations on all sides of the proposed addition. The applicant amended the original site drawing plan submitted for the file to reflect a 16’ x 14’ addition (referred to as “Plan B”). PUBLIC COMMENT None. DELIBERATION/DECISION Conditional Use, 14’ x 16’ Addition to House, Lavalette, 465 Bay Road (CU05-32) MOTION by Mr. Funtow, SECOND by Mr. Waltien, to approve CU05-32, conditional use application by George and Linda Lavalette for 465 Bay Road to expand a noncomplying structure as indicated on the site plan submitted and amended on 9/19/05 (known as “Plan B”) subject to conditions as set forth in the Staff Report and as follows:
4. 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 (3-0); motion carried. 4. APPEALS A05-33: Appeal by John Blanchard to contest the violation issued by the Zoning Coordinator on 8/1/05 for utilizing a portion of a residential structure at 61 Lakeview Drive for storage and retail for the adjacent commercial enterprise, The Lighting House John Blanchard appeared on behalf of the appeal. STAFF REPORT The Board received a staff report on the appeal, dated 9/19/05. It was noted the opinion of the Zoning Coordinator is that the use of the residential structure is limited to noncommercial use only per the approval of CU04-01 issued on 1/5/04 and residential storage only per the approval of B04-011 issued on 2/12/04. The property at 61 Lakeview Drive is located in the Residential-Commercial District (Article VIII). APPELLANT COMMENTS John Blanchard explained he is appealing the Notice of Violation for using an area on the back side of the duplex at 61 Lakeview Drive for storage of outdoor furniture that he is selling from the adjacent commercial property. Mr. Blanchard stated his understanding of the conditional use approval he received from the Zoning Board on January 5, 2004 allowed the storage/warehouse activity. Mr. Blanchard requested the Zoning Board find him not to be in violation of the approval, but if a violation is determined, to clarify use of the property. Ms. Tyminski pointed out only what has been warned can be addressed at the meeting (i.e. the appeal). Mr. Blanchard stated due to the Route 7 reconstruction project, property where outdoor furniture was displayed was lost. The house adjacent to The Lighting House was purchased with the plan to use the space as a storage/warehouse area. There are multi-use structures all along Route 7, noted Mr. Blanchard, and the storage/warehouse use helps decrease traffic on Route 7 and is harmonious between residential and commercial uses. A picket fence was installed to block the view of the commercial operation from area residents. Also, the building permit says “storage area, no living space”. Mr. Waltien referred to the Findings of Fact for Mr. Blanchard’s conditional use application which clearly state “…storage for residential use in the structure”. Mr. Funtow asked if the building permit classifies the type of storage. Ms. Tyminski stated the permit makes reference to the decision of January, 2004. The Board reviewed the minutes of January 5, 2004 and confirmed effort was made to specify no storage of retail items at the site. Ms. Tyminski pointed out retail/commercial storage requires the lot to be a minimum of two acres. John Blanchard interjected the use is not retail, but warehouse storage space. Mr. Funtow recalled his visit to The Lighting House and the salesperson telling him there is more merchandise in the warehouse (indicating the duplex). Mr. Blanchard reiterated there are multiple uses all along Route 7, and questioned why the space can not be used for warehousing. Mr. Waltien pointed out the area is zoned residential. Mr. Funtow added the structure is primarily a residence. Application for an accessory use could be submitted. Ms. Tyminski pointed out that the lot size that is required is cumulative as uses are added. With the existing lot, there is not enough lot size to allow retail storage. It was noted the appellant received copies of the minutes and Findings of Fact of the 2004 decision which state the approval parameters clearly. Mr. Blanchard stressed he would not have built the building if it could not be used for storage, and he was clear in stating his intended use of the space to the Zoning Board. Also, there is no specification of “residential only” in the documents. Tom Koerner agreed the appellant stated clearly what the plan was and the Zoning Administrator at the time, Mr. Bigalow, stated clearly that retail storage would not be allowed. Mr. Blanchard acknowledged the Board’s mandate to follow the regulations, but requested common sense be applied as well. Mr. Blanchard stated what he has done is an admirable addition to Shelburne, making the area better. If the structure can not be used, then storage trailers will be put in the parking spaces for the product. Steve Waltien suggested Mr. Blanchard ensure ongoing storage (versus temporary storage) in trailers on the lot is allowed per town regulations. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Smith, neighbor, stated in terms of appearance, there is no issue and there is no issue with how John Blanchard is using the space, however, there is concern about being surrounded by retail uses owned and used by someone not as sensitive to the area residents as Mr. Blanchard (there is another commercial/residential lot by Mr. Smith’s property). There was discussion of changing the zoning in the area to allow retail storage in the duplex owned by the appellant. Mr. Blanchard was advised a request for a zoning change can be submitted to the Shelburne Planning Commission for consideration. DELIBERATION/DECISION Appeal of Zoning Violation, Retail Storage in Residential Structure, Blanchard, 61 Lakeview Drive (A05-33) The Board will further discuss the appeal in deliberative session. 5. DELIBERATIVE SESSION MOTION by Mr. Funtow, SECOND by Mr. Koerner, to enter deliberative session. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried. The Board entered deliberative session at 9:20 p.m. 6. MINUTES 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koerner, SECOND by Funtow, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: 3 -0. Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary. Dated at Shelburne, Vermont, this 3rd day of October 2005 for the meeting on September 19, 2005. _________________________________ _________________________________ Thomas Koerner, Chair Gwen Webster _________________________________ _________________________________ Steve Waltien Boris Funtow _________________________________ Milton Edelman
January 2005Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes February 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes March 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes April 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes May 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes June 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes July 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes August 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes September 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes October 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes December 2005 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes |
|
|
|
Home | Contacts | Departments | Events | Information | Search | Site Map | Services | Forms | Minutes
Site by DIGITAL FRONTIER © 2009 |
