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

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Sam Gardner, Birney B. Boehland, Dave & Lynden Prior, Bill Hoadley, Chris Kapsalis, Thea Platt, Andy LaPierre, Claude LaPierre, Joseph Maille, Rosemary Sadler, Judith Manchester, Tom Rutz, Lisa Kent, Lisa Espershede, Randy Rowland, Ted Kenney, Frank Califano, Pat Califano, P.M. Costello, Jim Lovejoy, J. Murray, Sallie Pintauro, Stephen Pintauro, Sylvia Maille, Katharine Stockman,  Rad Romeyn, Robert Platt, Ethan Platt, Stephanie Kaplan, Randy Sweeney, Eric Morris, Nancy Emberley, Jon Yarnall, Steven Edwards, Linda Lavalette, Joanne Guillemette, Bernie Guillemette, Carolynne Wang, Kathy Allen, Candie Kjelleren, Gerry Guillemette, Sue Dixon, Suzanne Robert, Gail Albert, Dave Marshall, Chris Davis, Mary Abele, R.J. McKay, Jr., Martha Wellman McKay, Barbara Jones, Louise Ransom, Andrea VanHovan, G. Weyae, Austin Hart, Linda Barker, Jim Keyes, Dick Elkins, Jim Murdock, John Kassel, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News), and Michael Spears.

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and noted a majority vote is needed to carry a decision. A tie vote (2-2) results in a denial. Deliberative Session may be held at the end of the meeting.

 

Chairman Koerner stated the Board will cover any old business at the end of the meeting.

 

Stephen Edwards appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/9/06.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Edwards explained the proposal for a coin and jewelry shop in 300 s.f.(a 30’x 10’ space) at the north end of the building at 2997 Shelburne Road. Mr. Edwards provided the Zoning Board with a schematic showing the measurements of the office space in the building. There are 34 parking spaces on-site. The proposed use (coin shop) will need two spaces. The total parking need for the uses in the building is 31 spaces, stated Mr. Edwards. Boris Funtow commented the owner of the property needs to submit complete parking information for the site. There was further discussion of how to best secure the necessary parking information for the site without holding up the applicant who is only a tenant at the site.  The Board suggested that no more applications for the site will be heard until a complete parking analysis is received.

 

Tom Koerner mentioned the sign (already posted). Mr. Edwards stated the sign that is up is temporary. The permanent sign will be posted following conditional use approval. Hours of operation at least initially will be on Saturdays only until approximately 4 p.m.

 

Mr. Funtow pointed out the dumpster needs to be shown on the site plan and the dumpster area needs to be screened.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

A gentleman representing the applicant informed the Board that the applications have been withdrawn in order to allow the Town the opportunity to warn them properly. Steve Waltien observed the applicant has been out of compliance for months and each time the application comes up, there are requests for extension. Paul Bohne explained the warning for the application should have included the wording “noncomplying structure” so the recommendation is to continue the application until the next meeting of the Zoning Board.  Gwen Webster stated the applicant must address parking on their site.

 

Chairman Koerner clarified the building height referred to in the appeal applies to what is written in the covenants of the subdivision, not town regulations. The chronology of the issuance/withdraw of the building permit(s) and filing of the appeal was reviewed: the original building permit (issued 10/26/05) had not been appealed so the property owner began construction (on November 11, 2005); concerns were expressed by neighbors on November 14, 2005 and communicated by the Zoning Office to the property owner on 11/17/05 following which the property owner amended the permit; the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval on the subdivision application in the review process; a revised building permit (B05-194R1) was issued and appealed by the neighbors on 11/28/05; the property owner withdrew the revised permit on 12/8/05.  At issue, continued Mr. Koerner, is how a permit that has been withdrawn can be appealed and whether the original building permit (issued 10/26/05) is still in effect. Paul Bohne stated per the advice of legal counsel, the original permit is still valid and appeal of the (revised) permit is moot. The Town Attorney also advised, continued Mr. Bohne, that because the appellants filed an appeal, they have the right to be heard or withdraw the appeal. The Zoning Board can decide whether to hear comments or not.  Following brief discussion, the Board decided to listen to comments on the matter, but stressed there is no action for the Zoning Board to take. If there is disagreement with the position of the town on the matter, the issue can be further appealed in court.

 

Paul Bohne stated the town feels its obligation was fulfilled by reviewing legal issues which are not part of the covenants for the development enforceable by members of the homeowners association.  Tom Koerner pointed out enforcement of the height issue is the responsibility of the homeowners association unless there is a violation of town regulations for which the town would do enforcement.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Randy Rowland, Pond Road, questioned how a building permit issued by the town can be withdrawn by the applicant and construction can still occur on the site.  Tom Koerner reiterated per the advice of the Town Attorney, the first (original) permit is still in place so construction can occur. Boris Funtow added the original permit gauges if the house is built properly, and if not, then the Zoning Office can be contacted regarding a violation notice.

 

Robert Platt, representing property owners and residents on Pond Road, voiced disagreement with the town’s position.  Mr. Platt gave a presentation on the matter, showing how Shelburne Pond is extensively used for recreational purposes, how the residence under discussion impacts the significant view area (Point 17 of the Significant View Map), advice from the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee to move the building envelopes on lots #2 and #3 in the subdivision into the trees to protect the view corridor of the pond and surrounding area and the letter from Krebs & Lansing saying the revised building envelopes are screened from view from Shelburne Pond by vegetated hedgerows, and aerial photographs showing there should be up to a 50’ swath of trees in front of the house per the directive of the Shelburne Planning Commission to limit tree cutting and maximize screening.  Mr. Platt reviewed the time line of events related to tree cutting and the building permit(s). Trees were cut by the property owner on September 1, 2005. On 11/12/05, Mr. Platt said he sent a letter to Dean Pierce asking him to investigate the matter and give him a reply. On 11/17/05, the town issued a revised building permit to address deficiencies in the first (original) permit. In his investigation of the matter, Mr. Platt said he was directed to the acting Zoning Administrator (Cindy Tyminski). Mr. Platt said he requested an administrative violation, and was told by Dean Pierce that the Town Attorney advised the Planning Commission wording in the approval was too vague. Staff felt the matter should be handled by the Zoning Board. After several exchanges, an appeal was filed, stated Mr. Platt.

 

Photographs highlighting the size of the trees that were felled (23” diameter Maples) and what the site looks like currently (no trees, clear view of pond) were shown. A picture of the house being built (taken from the pond looking toward the house) showed the foundation (which is in place) and that plantings will not grow tall enough to screen the house which will have an average height of 30’ and is 38’ on the right side.

 

Mr. Platt reviewed technical issues with the permits, including that Planning Commission approval is required (was told approval from the Planning Commission was not required for the permits), the wording in the covenants is not the wording used by the Planning Commission in the project approval, the applicant withdrew the town issued permit which had problems yet continued construction, the executed legal documents are not in the file, and information was requested from the Town Attorney but never received. Mr. Platt asked that a tree inventory be taken and a performance bond to reforest/restore the site to the same condition before the trees were cut down be required of the property owner. In addition, the property owner cut a triangular section of trees (180’x 53’x 8’) on the neighboring lot, and this area should be restored. If the property owner will not replace the trees, then the town should do it and charge the cost to the property owner. The performance bond must cover the planting and maintenance of the trees as well as any necessary replacements. Also, there must be no cutting or thinning of trees for at least 30 years.  Mr. Platt gave a copy of his presentation to the Zoning Board and Zoning Administrator along with a synopsis of comments on views which include 49 mentions by the Planning Commission that the house should be screened.  Steve Waltien asked about the reforestation expectation. Mr. Platt stated the Zoning Board can determine the size of the trees, but up to 16” diameter Maples could be transplanted from the wild. The largest nursery stock is approximately 6” in diameter. The reforestation can be outsourced to a company with the equipment able to transplant mature trees. Mr. Platt suggested a tree expert with credentials draft a plan showing what will best screen the house.

 

Birney Boehland, owner of the property and house under discussion, explained when the building application was submitted, the height restrictions were explained. The average elevation of the house per Shelburne’s regulations is 27’6” which is two and a half feet less than what is allowed.  The final approval by the homeowners association for the development is the covenants. Eric Morris, Manager of Swenson Land & Cattle (the company that sold the property to Mr. Boehland), said he was told the covenants are the same as the restrictions the town placed on the development (covenants became part of the town’s requirements for the property). The restrictions address tree cutting, building height, view corridors. Mr. Boehland said when he purchased the property, he received a deed that referenced the homeowners association and restrictions thereof. Mr. Boehland said he followed the guidelines for cutting inside and outside the building envelope (trees up to 50’ in height).  The property is being surveyed (building envelope and 50’ perimeter) and Act 250 representatives are to do a site visit. Any violations will be rectified.  Mike Burke, the engineer who worked on the project, observed with Cindy Tyminski (Shelburne Zoning Coordinator) where trees were cut down; both felt the cutting was within the guidelines, stated Mr. Boehland.  Boris Funtow asked if the building permit contained other restrictions. Mr. Boehland explained the initial building permit was approved, then the Zoning Coordinator said there had been complaints about the house exceeding the height limit and being the wrong color (the house was not yet built or painted) and too many trees being cut. The Zoning Coordinator then advised issuing another permit indicating the size of trees allowed to be cut down (less than 30’ high) and reiterating the other covenants and restrictions on the project. Mr. Funtow asked if there were other covenants besides the restrictions in the record in the permit. Mr. Boehland testified he was not aware of any.

 

Stephanie Kaplan, attorney for the appellants, disagreed with the Town Attorney’s position on the appeal, and opined there are a number of issues over which the Zoning Board has jurisdiction. There is question of whether the permittee can unilaterally withdraw a permit that was validly issued, and if the building permit supersedes conditions of approval stipulated by the Planning Commission. Attorney Kaplan stated there was no documentation indicating the Town Attorney/staff were satisfied by the wording in the legal documents and if the documents do what they say they are suppose to do, such as shield the house (maximum screening, minimum cutting) and have a height restriction. The appellants asked the Zoning Coordinator to enforce the terms of the building permit and issue a notice of violation as required. All actions of the Zoning Administrator are appeal-able to the Zoning Board so the matter is the jurisdiction of the Board, argued Ms. Kaplan.

 

Steve Waltien observed the building permit is public record and the permit must be publicly displayed. The public record is what the public can rely on as to what is expected. When the revised building permit was issued, there is question as to how the permit can be arbitrarily pulled when the neighbors are on notice that this is how the site will be developed.  Birney Boehland stated he never filed an application for a second building permit; Cindy Tyminski was advised to suggest withdrawing the permit. Mr. Boehland said his attorney advises the first (initial) permit is in force. The structure is not being amended, but the covenants in force are being reflected. Mr. Boehland stressed he followed the rules as laid out to him and tried to appease the concerns as they were presented to him. Paul Bohne stated the legal opinion on the second permit is that the applicant has the right to withdraw because an individual has the right to change their mind and build something different within the conditions in place. Mr. Bohne stated the appeal still has merit to be heard by the Zoning Board. Ms. Kaplan interjected the appellants feel the Zoning Board should hear the appeal.

 

Boris Funtow asked about conditions on the first building permit. Mr. Bohne explained Planning Commission conditions usually are not on the building permit because it is part of the approval that all conditions have to be met in order to issue a permit.

 

Rad Romeyn, Pond Road, stated the neighbors are asking for help from the Zoning Board to ensure the conditions required by the Planning Commission regarding screening of the house from Pond Road and Shelburne Pond are enforced.  The Zoning Board explained procedure: the Zoning Coordinator is alerted and if necessary a Notice of Violation is issued, and if there still is no satisfaction, then the matter is appealed to the Zoning Board. The way the situation is before the Zoning Board presently, if appears the Board can not take any action, stated Chairman Koerner.

 

Thea Platt, Pond Road, described the beauty of the area and the pond, and being encumbered by huge houses. Ms. Platt opined the builder of the house under discussion is not interested in preserving the natural areas and beauty of Shelburne. The town needs to guard and preserve the area.  Tom Koerner urged keeping emotions out of the discussion, adding the Zoning Board will deliberate to determine the role of the Board in the matter.

 

Eric Morris, Swenson Land & Cattle, stated the matter is between Mr. Boehland and Act 250 to determine if there are violations of the covenants. Mr. Morris said his attorney reviewed the wording in the permit, and it is clear there are 11 conditions specifically addressing tree cutting, building height, view corridors. The deed says no 50’ trees will be cut within or outside of the building envelope. The deed does not address views of Shelburne Pond or Pond Road.  Birney Boehland said he acted on what was in the deed.

 

Randy Rowland, Pond Road, stated the Planning Commission had final approval points which should have become covenants approved by the Town Attorney, but this did not happen. The covenants say trees of 50’ in height can be cut outside the building envelope, but the Planning Commission said screening must be in place. There is confusion as to which directive governs.

 

Robert Platt reported a violation has been issued by Act 250 and Mr. Boehland must submit a remediation schedule for acceptance by Act 250. The requirements of Act 250 are different from the town restrictions. Mr. Boehland clarified Act 250 issued a “Notice of Alleged Violation”. The property is being surveyed, including the building envelope and 50’ outside the envelope. Act 250 will review the matter. Mr. Boehland also addressed comments about his connection to the land and appreciation of the beauty of the space, noting he has canoed on Shelburne Pond and lived in the area for many years. Mr. Boehland said he bought the lot with the building envelope, and can not build a house on the lot without it being visible. There are 26 clearly visible houses on Pond Road.

 

Andrea Van Hovan, Shelburne, commented on the apparent disconnect between the Town Attorney’s interpretation of the covenants and the deed not matching the Planning Commission conditions. Paul Bohne said he prefers not to comment on legal issues. Attorney Rushford drafts covenants and documents for developments on a regular basis, and it is not unusual to have verbal communication.

 

Bob Platt submitted the warranty deed on the property as recorded in the Shelburne town records. The deed addresses tree cutting minimums along the Pond Road side of the property to provide screening.  Mr. Platt made reference to the Declaration of Covenants, Volume 315, Page 895, “…governed by standard tree cutting minimum on Pond Road to provide screening…” to point out there is mention of screening in the deed.

 

Chris Kapsalis, Dorset Street, testified he has a view of the pond, and opined the problem before the Zoning Board is a community problem that should be mitigated by the town.  Bob Platt interjected the Zoning Board is simply being asked to enforce what the Planning Commission dictated.

 

A woman in the audience urged the Zoning Board to visit the site.  Steve Waltien agreed if the Zoning Board is to be further involved, a site walk is critical.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Zoning Board will discuss the matter in Deliberative Session.

 

Sam Gardner, Northeast Construction, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/9/06. Tom Koerner reviewed the proposal to increase the existing 489 s.f. apartment to 735 s.f., noting an accessory apartment must not exceed 30% of the square foot area of the primary structure.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Gardner stated the foundation of the building is falling apart and must be rebuilt. The structure is close to the boundary line. The proposed redesign of the space shows 735 s.f. of space which is still tight.  Gwen Webster calculated the existing lot coverage is 22%, and adding the deck and extra square footage will exceed the allowed lot coverage.  Mr. Gardner stated the apartment has a loft. The footprint of the building will not change.

 

Boris Funtow asked about state statutes versus local zoning with regard to accessory apartment square footage allowances. Paul Bohne stated state statues supersede local zoning. Mr. Funtow asked who is residing in the primary residence. Mr. Gardner stated the property is rented. The property owner lives out of state. The apartment use is grandfathered.  Tom Koerner reviewed the regulations for an accessory apartment relative to number of bedrooms (two), square footage (600 s.f. maximum), and occupancy (principal structure or apartment must be owner occupied), noting the pre-existing apartment use is grandfathered.

 

There was mention of moving the structure away from the property line if possible and that the structure can not be made more nonconforming.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Randy Shover, 399 Bay Road, stated there is not a deck on the front of the existing building. Mr. Shover also recalled when he had to rebuild (10 years ago) and was instructed to leave three walls in place, thereby downsizing the building to meet town regulations. Mr. Shover said he could not move his building, and he had to live on his property in order to have an (accessory) apartment. The applicant’s building needs to be repaired and the same rules and regulations should apply. Mr. Shover also objected to the proposed second story on the building. Tom Koerner acknowledged Mr. Shover’s comments, but noted the rules have changed over the past 10 years.

 

Linda Lavalette, Bay Road, stated the Zoning & Planning Office should be renamed to “Get Around Planning and Zoning” Office because it appears applicants are being coached on how to get around zoning by staff. Ms. Lavalette urged the Zoning Board to reject the plan. Linda Lavalette contended the applicant’s house is substandard and was so 32 years ago when Ms. Lavalette lived in the apartment (snow would blow into the building through the walls due to shifting of the foundation). The lifespan of the structure has expired and the owner and builder both know this, continued Ms. Lavalette. If the building is torn down and replaced with a new structure, the new structure should conform to standards. Also, the landlord is absent. The building in on the property line.  A 1988 real estate listing of the property says there is 1,310 s.f. There have been small additions (300 s.f.) by the Atkins so combined with the square footage, 30% of the area would be 480 s.f. There is not a loft inside the building.  Ms. Lavalette said she has a six foot fence on her property line and aesthetically the proposal for an 18.5’ structure within one foot of her fence is offensive and likely would impact her property value. The Zoning Board was urged to do a site visit and take measurements of the structure.  There is not a 15’ buffer between properties. Ms. Lavalette suggested the second floor plan be eliminated, improvements occur within the same square footage of the building, or the building be torn down and built elsewhere.

 

Sam Gardner stated the loft in the building has been covered over (attic space). The square footage of the main house is 1,462 s.f.  Tom Koerner stated the apartment size must be 600 s.f. or 30% of the principal structure, whichever is less. This equates to 439 s.f. for the existing building, however, the pre-existing apartment is 480 s.f. The applicant was urged to maintain a building height of one story.  Mr. Gardner was not certain it is feasible to move the building off the property line as suggested by the neighbors. Also, the house is occupied presently. The apartment is not occupied at this time, but has been in the past two years.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dave Marshall, CEA, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/9/06.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dave Marshall explained the plan for the Channing House to be a place of worship with 175-seat capacity. The Channing House is on 11 acres proposed to be changed to 7.5 acres under separate application.  The house is off the entrance to Meach Cove Trust land. There is buffering on the east and south sides of the site. The proposed improvements are within the wooded area around the Channing House. Meach Cove Trust property surrounds the property. The owner supports the application. The house is 2,900’ from Meach Cove Trust property and 1,200‘ from Bostwick Road. The outside color of the house will be changed from yellow to brown to better blend with the area. The site will be served by town water, on-site septic, a fire pond, and a widened driveway to meet emergency vehicle requirements.  The traffic study done for a 260-seat place of worship proposed previously on the site showed there will be no impact on the level of service at the Bostwick Road/Route 7 intersection. The current proposal is for less seating capacity so it is expected there will be no traffic impact. There will not be an impact on the character of the area. The site is well screened. The religious land use law says places of worship can not be excluded, but can be reviewed under conditional use requirements, stated Mr. Marshall.

 

Boris Funtow asked about the front yard setback (75’ from the right-of-way). Paul Bohne clarified there is 296’ from the front boundary line to the structure, 156’ to the side property line and 164’ to the rear property line. Mr. Funtow stated a letter from the applicant was received answering concerns noted on Page 1 of the Staff Report, Paragraph 330.2(a) related to setbacks and rights-of-way.

 

Tom Koerner asked if other permits are required. Mr. Marshall stated permits from Labor & Industry, state storm water discharge, and waste water will be secured.  Mr. Koerner asked about the change in color of the structure. Mr. Marshall stated the brown color is more sensitive to the area and more aesthetic (“neighborly, the right thing to do”). Mr. Koerner asked about changes to the acreage. Mr. Marshall stated the acreage change is to avoid Act 250 review. Mr. Marshall reviewed the subdivisions of the Meach Cove Trust land to date. The Channing House was subdivided from the main parcel in the mid-1980s.

 

Boris Funtow questioned if referring to the existing traffic study is justification the proposal will not have a traffic impact. Dave Marshall stated the Planning Commission will likely require traffic counts.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Murdock, neighbor by Shelburne Beach, spoke in support of the earth tone color for the outside façade of the house. Mr. Murdock said he was opposed to the first project on Meach Cove Trust land, but the current proposal is a creative use of the area. Mr. Murdock urged the Zoning Board to consider whether a 175-seat church is indeed a conditional use within the agricultural/rural district.  Other concerns expressed by Mr. Murdock include the size of the proposal and if another church is needed in Shelburne, if there will be bells, a steeple, an organ, an outside sound system, year round use, weekend use, outside events, classrooms, increase in traffic at the entryway to the property (Bostwick/Meach Cove), compatibility to the area, and tax implications with a church parcel.

 

Mary Abele, All Souls, responded to Mr. Murdock’s concerns, stating there will not be a church bell, but there will be an organ inside the building. Services are held on the site currently (Sunday evenings), and there have been no complaints. There will not be concerts, but may be the occasional outdoor gathering. There may be weddings held on the site on occasion as well. Outside events will be under a tent set up in the hollow area surrounded by trees and a hill (well screened and buffered).

 

Boris Funtow stated a definition of “place of worship” and the activities to take place is needed. The area is not zoned for a place of worship, though state law supersedes. Shelburne zoning should be updated to reflect this to avoid having to categorize the proposal under “similar use” since the use is not similar to anything in the immediate area. John Kassel, attorney for Meach Cove Trust, explained there are mechanisms in the Rural 1 District addressing proposals that are no more intrusive than similar uses allowed in the area, such as a campground or commercial riding stable. The proposed church is no more and probably is less intrusive. The land is to be deeded by Meach Cove Trust to All Souls. There will be restrictions in the deed. Meach Cove Trust is interested in what is going to happen on the land.

 

There were no further comments.

 

The Zoning Board will discuss the matter in Deliberative Session.

 

Austin Hart (attorney), Jim Keyes (Citizen’s Bank), and Linda Barker (Citizen’s Bank, Shelburne local branch) appeared on behalf of the application.  Attorney Hart explained the existing free-standing sign by the road is to be replaced with an internally illuminated 16 s.f. sign on a pedestal. The sign on the drive through window on the north side of the building will be replaced, including the vinyl sign listing the hours of operation, the plaque listing the rules for the ATM, and the plaque noting FDIC insurance.  The signs are existing. The replacement signs are slightly different in color and size.  The surround on the drive through ATM will be replaced with an internally illuminated surround plaque. All three elements of the sign replacement were denied by the Zoning Administrator, stated Mr. Hart.

 

Regarding the free-standing sign, there is a row of trees which was required by the Planning Commission to provide screening of the building. The trees are in line with the sign and effectively obscure the sign from view. The new free-standing sign is designed to be seen so people know where the bank is located. The sign is a critical element of success for the bank, stressed Mr. Hart.  Zoning regulations require a 10’ setback from the property line, but the existing sign is between one and three feet from the setback. If the new sign is located to meet setback requirements, the sign will be even less visible from Route 7 and would end up being installed in the parking area. The proposal is to place the new sign in the same location as the existing sign.  The new sign is less obtrusive, (narrower in shape) and more attractive. There are a number of other commercial property signs along the roadway (veterinarian, BankNorth) in the same setting (within one to three feet of the front property line). Equal treatment is being requested for Citizen’s Bank.  Regarding the internally illuminated feature, zoning allows this type of lighting and there are some such signs in town. Mr. Hart argued a well designed and built internally illuminated sign can be attractive and less intrusive on neighboring properties than an externally lighted sign. Presently, spotlights shine on the sign all night. The proposed sign as designed is appropriate for the location, stated Mr. Hart.  The lettering on the sign will be green background with white lettering which is Citizen’s Bank identity. According to the Zoning Administrator, the square footage of the free-standing sign exceeds 16 s.f., but the size is 4’ x 4’, continued Attorney Hart. The pedestal is not included in the sign size calculation. The pedestal will be painted white, but not illuminated so it is clear it is not part of the 4’x 4’ sign.  Boris Funtow pointed out §1680.5 (Nonconforming Signs) says nonconforming signs can not be altered, rebuilt, or relocated. If a nonconforming sign is redone, it must comply with the regulations. Mr. Hart stated the sign is proposed to remain in the same location and is more conforming (it is lower, more compact, the internal illumination will be less intrusive than the spot lights).  Citizen’s Bank feels the proposed sign is better, and the Zoning Board is asked to exercise discretion, stated Mr. Hart. The screening is significant and hides the building which is on the commercial route into town. The hedgerow was planted in 1987.

 

Gwen Webster spoke in opposition to internally illuminated signs in the village. Steve Waltien acknowledged the arguments put forth by the applicant, but questioned how the Zoning Board can override the bylaws with regard to signs. Mr. Hart asked the Zoning Board to consider the special facts and circumstances, including site conditions, history of the property, extenuating circumstances, and that the sign is existing. Mr. Waltien asked if the replacement sign could be 15 s.f. in size and the lumens not greater than the existing lighting. Mr. Hart said his client will take the suggestion under consideration. Jim Keyes, Citizen’s Bank, stated there are five signs in the same line of site along the street between Citizen’s Bank and BankNorth. TD BankNorth and Caron’s Auto both have internally illuminated signs.  Mr. Funtow offered the applicant can ask the town to change the bylaws related to signs. Mr. Hart reiterated Citizen’s Bank simply wants a sign like the one for BankNorth.

 

Mr. Hart reviewed the surround sign for the drive through ATM which was denied by the Zoning Coordinator because it was considered a second façade sign and the regulations only allow one façade sign.  Citizen’s Bank does not feel the ATM surround is a façade sign. It is located on the north side of the building and screened by trees. Unless a driver is stopped in front of the ATM, the sign is not visible. The internal illumination is a functional part of the sign for safety and security reasons.  The “Citizen’s Bank” name and logo can be removed from the surround if that is what denotes a façade sign.  Boris Funtow observed if the name and logo are removed, then the sign is simply providing directions on how to use the ATM. Mr. Hart referred to provision 1680.12.b which says if the proposal is consistent with the philosophy of the ordinance, the Zoning Board can approve it with the name left in place.  Following further discussion, the Zoning Board concurred removing the name from the surround for the ATM makes it a directional sign only.

 

 Mr. Hart discussed the vinyl sign and plaques on the drive through window on the north side of the building. The signs can not be seen unless the driver is in front of the window. A two square foot sign is too small to contain all the necessary information and still be readable by patrons from their car, stated Mr. Hart.  The sign tells how to use the drive through window.  The Board should consider the signs directional and the sign being greater than two square feet is consistent with the philosophy of the ordinance.  The FDIC sign is less than two square feet in size so the Board should rule the sign is not a façade sign, but a directional sign as well. The definition of Signs, §1810.38, was read.

 

Mr. Hart mentioned the conditions of approval in the staff report should the Zoning Board grant the appeal, specifically requiring design review and Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of permits. The application is the same except the bank name and logo will be removed on the ATM surround, and the Board is being asked to consider the signs directional in nature, stated Mr. Hart. Also, the pedestal on the free-standing sign is not included as part of the sign size calculation. The façade sign on the front of the building was built as an internally illuminated sign, but following receipt of a notice from the town, the sign was turned off. The previous sign was internally illuminated.  Mr. Hart offered to have the façade sign not internally illuminated though it was approved as such if the free-standing sign is allowed to be internally illuminated.

 

Mr. Hart submitted a written summary of his arguments on the signs to the Board.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Zoning Board will discuss the matter in Deliberative Session.

 

The Zoning Board entered Deliberative Session at 11 p.m.

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

 

Vote: unanimous(4-0); motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

 

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 6^th day of February for the meeting of  January 9, 2006.                          .

_____________________________              ____________________________

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                    Gwen Webster

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Steve Waltien                                                   Boris Funtow