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

ADMINISTRATION:           Paul Bohne, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Holt, Linda Lavalette, Sam Gardner, Robert Rosseler, Sean McGrath, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Introductions were made. The procedure to be followed at the meeting and the definition of “interested party” was explained. It was noted a tie vote (2-2) results in denial of an application.

 

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

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/6/06. Mr. Koerner noted the hearing was continued to allow the applicant to provide a revised floor plan and elevations.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Gardner submitted a revised site plan and elevations. The corner of the re-constructed apartment will be shifted a few feet onto the property and away from the existing fence which is on the property line. The building is proposed to be a 20’x 25’, one-story structure.

 

Mr. Koerner pointed out state statute for accessory apartments require the owner to live in the primary residence/on-site. Mr. Funtow suggested the Board revisit whether the existing apartment is in a grandfathered location. There was further discussion of the use and location (separate issues). It was advised any modifications to accessory apartments should be brought before the Zoning Board for review. It was noted a neighbor (Lavalette) indicated the existing apartment has been a rental unit in continuous use for more than 40 years. It was also noted that if a use is abandoned for two years, allowance for the use expires. Following further investigation, it was found the owner does not live on-site, but the apartment is “grandfathered”.

 

Mr. Koerner stated Board concerns about the size and height of the proposed apartment have been addressed.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Lavalette, neighbor, acknowledged the applicant’s willingness to address concerns, and asked if pivoting the nearest corner of the proposed building another four feet away from the existing fence could be considered as this would allow exit out of the apartment bedroom window in an emergency.  Mr. Koerner asked if the apartment building foundation will be replaced. Mr. Gardner confirmed the foundation will be replaced, and there is at least six feet on the driveway side of the proposed building to allow the building to be angled away from the fence. The siting of the building is such to take advantage of the view.  Ms. Lavalette stated the fence was moved a few feet from the corner of the existing apartment to provide some extra room. There are property boundary pins in the front of the property. Mr. Gardner stated the plan is to move the proposed building farther away from the fence. The existing building will be torn down. Mr. Koerner urged the applicant to be certain of the accuracy of the property and fence lines. The building will be torn down and the corner of the new building needs to be indicated accurately on the site plan. The site plan must also show accurate dimensions, distances, and setbacks. The applicant should consider moving the building farther from the boundary line.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve the Conditional Use application by Chris Atkin (owner and applicant) and Northeast Construction (agent) to rebuild a pre-existing apartment, which is a non-complying structure on property at 441 Bay Road with conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 02/06/06, and as follows:

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

Robert Rosseler, agent, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/6/06. Mr. Koerner noted the property under discussion is the former Uncle Leo’s Store.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Rosseler explained Uncle Leo’s was closed until Marco’s opened as a similar convenience store/deli use. A permit was obtained from the interim Zoning Administrator, but there was some confusion. The operation still is largely a convenience store business with food service mainly between 11:30 a.m.- 1:30 p.m.& 5:30 p.m.-8 p.m. Vehicular traffic is similar (to Uncle Leo’s) with changes due to the Route 7 reconstruction project that include a traffic signal at the proper intersection. The new road does impinge on parking. The parking space calculation for the 30’x 44.5’ building is nine spaces. There are 10 spaces, handicap spaces, and employee parking in the rear of the building. Use of the access road to get to the antique store (to the north) may infringe on pedestrians having to cross the access road. The handicap ramp has been reconfigured to parallel the front of the store. A landscape plan has been proposed and a surveyor has been engaged to design the layout of the property.

 

Mr. Koerner questioned the number of handicapped spaces (many). Mr. Rosseler stated the surveyor detailed the parking spaces.

 

There was discussion of the differences between a convenience store/pizzeria versus a pizzeria/deli. Mr. McGrath, owner, explained Marco’s sells convenience merchandise and stocks various sundries requested by patrons. There was discussion of how/if the definition of fast food fits a sandwich shop and/or pizzeria. Mr. McGrath said he submitted a letter to the Town from Capital Candy that outlined the types of convenience merchandise purchased by Marco’s. Prepared food is not sold until 11:30 a.m. and again from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Otherwise, the store is a convenience store catering to the neighborhood (cigarettes, newspapers, toiletries, canned goods, and such), stressed Mr. McGrath.  Mr. Koerner asked if the gross revenue is derived from selling convenience goods. Mr. McGrath stated the gross revenue may be similar for selling merchandise versus pizza, but the margin is better on the pizza. Mr. Koerner asked if just pizza would be sold if that was an option. Mr. McGrath stated he did not anticipate a change, noting his other store sells more than pizza as well.

 

Mr. Waltien pointed out if the use is changed to a restaurant (permitted use), than the use is a similar use. Mr. Rosseler stated the applicant is representing the current application as a similar use.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

John Holt, resident, asked how the proposed use is different from a gas station offering McDonald’s fast food as a part of the operation. Mr. Koerner read §820.8, Conditional Use, for a fast food restaurant in a PUD. Mr. Holt questioned if pizza is considered a “fast food”. Mr. Funtow assured per the definition of “fast food”, pizza appears to be fast food. There was further discussion of the business offered by Uncle Leo’s that started out as all food and ended up as a convenience store with a deli. Mr. McGrath pointed out there was a pizza oven in the (Uncle Leo’s) store when he purchased the property.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session.

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 8:05 p.m.

 

 

Dated at Shelburne, Vermont this 13^th day of March for the meeting of February 6, 2006.                          .

_____________________________              ____________________________

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                    Gwen Webster

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Steve Waltien                                                   Boris Funtow