MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Tucker Holland, Kay Kraushaar, Fred Schmidt.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Don Senecal-Albrecht, Jim Gears, Randy Rowland, Steve Vock, Larry Williams, Joe Segale, Peter Richardson, Michael Matre Vayenneo, John Wakefield, Liam Murphy, Fritz Horton, Scott Jaunich, Stuart Bennett, Doug Riley, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (12/8/05)

3.      Discussion and/or Action on Town Plan

4.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road & 11 Falls Road (DR06-01)

5.      Final Plan Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road & 11 Falls Road (SUB05-09)

6.      Site Plan Amendment, Catamount/Harbour, LLC, 4750 Shelburne Road (SP06-01)

7.      Sketch Plan, Ram. N. Sinha, 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB06-01)

8.      Sketch Plan, Randolph & Virginia Rowland/James & Sue Gears, 888 Pond Road and 724 Pond Road (SUB06-02)

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the regular meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and acknowledged Fred Schmidt attending his last Planning Commission meeting as a member. Mr. Schmidt has been on the Shelburne Planning Commission since 1989.  Chairman Peterson read a poem he composed highlighting Mr. Schmidt’s contributions to Shelburne while serving on the Planning Commission, and a resolution expressing thanks and appreciation for Mr. Schmidt’s service to the town.

 

 

Mr. Schmidt was given a signed copy of “Vermont Gathering Places and Communities” by Peter Miller.

 

 

 

Peter Richardson (developer), Larry Williams (developer), Joe Segale (traffic engineer), Liam Murphy (attorney), and Steve Vock (engineer) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Richardson announced there will be nine condominium units proposed for the site rather than 14 units because it was felt the density was too high with 14 units. Each of the nine units will be slightly larger than the previous units and each will have its own garage. Parking in front of the condominiums will be decreased and more landscaping will be added.  Mr. Richardson reviewed the elevations. There will be interior changes to create the living units (cinder block walls will be removed and replaced with new separations), but enough of the existing walls will be retained to meet zoning requirements for historic preservation. The roof will be removed/replaced (Fritz Horton noted the current form roof is dated, 1960s era, very shabby, and does not match the surrounding buildings).  There was mention of the concerns expressed by Stuart Bennett, adjacent property owner, with regard to the initial proposal. Mr. Richardson pointed out the balcony and west end of the northern wing have been eliminated with the new proposal. The roof pitch is changed to a more traditional roof. The orientation of the windows and doors as well as the elevation remains the same. There is detail on the windows to avoid having a “blank wall” look.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/12/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Bennett, Shelburne Road, stated the side of the building facing his property will be bland. Larry Williams assured the façade is improved because there are new materials, windows, and a new layout of the windows.  Mr. Bennett asked to see the elevations. Mr. Richardson stated the elevations have not changed. The interior of the units have not been laid out as yet.

 

There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

·        Sheet A-1, “Site Plan” prepared by LeMay + Youkel, dated January 3, 2006;

·        Sheet A-2, “Elevation Rev 1.3.06” prepared by LeMay + Youkel, dated January 3, 2006;

·        Sheet A-2a, “East Wing/West Elevation Rev 1.3.06” prepared by LeMay + Youkel, dated January 3, 2006;

·        Sheet A-2b, “North Wing/South Elevation Rev 1.3.06” prepared by LeMay + Youkel, dated January 3, 2006.

 

Peter Richardson (developer), Larry Williams (developer), Joe Segale (traffic engineer), Liam Murphy (attorney), and Steve Vock (engineer) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Peter Richardson stated the conditions of approval for the preliminary plan have been addressed in the final plan.  The final plan is consistent with design review recommendations. There are no outstanding issues with Public Works or the Fire Department (i.e. there is no contest with the comments and what is required will be done). Comments from the traffic engineer at the Metropolitan Planning Organization were just received.  A letter of credit for landscaping will be submitted. There will be compliance with the lighting and zoning bylaws. Items on the application checklist are complete. The plan is consistent with the site plan labeled “A-1”. The density on the site has been decreased (only nine townhouses versus 14 units).  Conversations with the mobile home park owners have taken place regarding the right-of-way.  A parking waiver was granted with the preliminary plan approval, and there have been no changes. The loading area is in the same place as shown on the preliminary plan. There have been no changes to landscaping.  VTrans has indicated it will grant permission to move the curb cut 15’ to the south, and some unresolved issues remain relative to that move. Work continues with VTrans regarding storm water matters.  School and recreation impact fees were resolved with the preliminary plan approval. A traffic study was submitted with the preliminary plan application and a follow up study was done which was submitted with the final plan. The traffic study showed the development will not have substantial impact on level of service or problems with vehicular circulation on-site.  Moving the curb cut will help. Queuing is not exacerbated. There is no left turn into the site from the intersection. A vehicle can exit the site to the intersection or, contrary to what was stated in the application, can go south on Falls Road.  Regarding pedestrian circulation, the sidewalk configuration presented in the preliminary plan remains in place. Crosswalks and sidewalk will be installed as necessary. The applicant pledged cooperation with the town study on findings and action to be taken at the intersection.

 

Mr. Richardson reviewed the sidewalk network proposed for the site.  Fred Schmidt commented the intersection for pedestrians is the worst in the state. A plan for the entire area is needed. Mr. Richardson assured a plan is being developed. Larry Williams suggested the crosswalk could be on hold until the town figures out what the right solution is at the intersection.

 

Larry Williams referred to the parking waiver mentioned in the staff report, noting his recollection that the matter was settled. Mr. Williams pointed out nothing has changed with the site plan except the number of condominium units has been decreased. Mr. Williams also recalled approval of the site plan showing a common right-of-way with the mobile home park was secured, but negotiations for that layout with the mobile home park owners were not successful so Plan “A-1” is before the Planning Commission for approval.

 

There was discussion of the entry to the site (from Route 7 going north just beyond the traffic light) and that entrance to the site from Falls Road will be prohibited. Steve Vock reported the requirements from VTrans have been incorporated into the site plan (drainage, loading area, sidewalk, signage, one-way circulation out of the site).  Mr. Vock said he will be meeting with Shelburne Public Works to review the comments from the department.  Mr. Vock further explained the main access to the site from Route 7 and moving the curb cut to make a better access as stipulated by VTrans.  Rick Peterson questioned the stipulation of exiting onto Route 7 and only being able to go north; in order to go south on Route 7 a driver must exit the site onto Falls Road and go to the traffic light.  Following further discussion, there was agreement the schematic from VTrans needs clarification. Joe Segale stated the Falls Road driveway is egress only. There is ingress/egress onto Route 7 from the site.

 

Mr. Segale reviewed the results of the traffic analysis which showed the estimate of queue length to be very small (November 3, 2005 memo). The sensitivity analysis was done during the AM/PM peak traffic hours and included traffic from the mobile home park. The results indicated there will not be a queuing problem and the driveway will not be blocked (20 cars per hour or one car every three minutes). Hilda White commented there is never a moment presently when there are no cars in a queue. Mr. Segale stated when the light changes and vehicles clear out, there is some time before the queue begins again.  There is a 15-20 minute portion of the hour (in the mornings on school days) when it takes more time for cars to clear the intersection, admitted Mr. Segale. Tucker Holland asked how many cars can stack in 65’. Mr. Segale stated a car length is approximately 25’. Mr. Segale stated the sidewalk and crosswalk on Falls Road is logical for the development. There was further discussion of the limitations/problems with the intersection. It was noted the analysis was done assuming the traffic light was optimized.

 

Steve Vock reviewed the signage and markings recommended by VTrans to ensure flow of traffic from the site. Discussions with VTrans are ongoing regarding the “No Left Turn” movement to ensure this is clear to drivers.  VTrans admits the site is a challenge, stated Mr. Vock.

 

Larry Williams said work has been done on the building per the prior design review approval. The Planning Commission is urged to approve the current plan so work can continue. The traffic situation is not ideal, but the area is not being made less safe by the proposed development. Rick Peterson explained the motivation of the Planning Commission is to avoid making the area unsafe. Fred Schmidt stated vitality in the center of the village is wanted, and the applicant can not be held responsible for the current situation with the intersection.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 1/12/06. Dean Pierce stated that Susan Smichenko’s suggestion that the traffic analysis be updated stemmed for the significant change to circulation proposed in the application (i.e., the one-way exit and right turn only, the latter since changed).  He also noted that although a new study is about to get underway, there will not be a comprehensive solution to the intersection’s problems in the short term. Additionally, Commissioners and other must bear in mind that certain improvements to the intersection are conditions placed on the Blodgett redevelopment/Bullrock project. The town, a co-applicant in that project, has assumed primary responsibility for the improvements—some of which it hopes to have completed by the Agency of Transportation. This work has been delayed, however. The Town has received one deadline extension and has requested a second. There will be some improvements made, but not all.  Dean Pierce also stated that completion of the sidewalk from the LaPlatte River bridge to the intersection is a high priority. The sidewalk will move more pedestrians coming down the east side of the road through the driveway of the Shelburne Inn and then down Falls Road so there will need to be an island and intersection improvements.

 

Tucker Holland asked about the parking spaces in front of 11 Falls Road, speculating the area could be used to widen the traffic corridor and allow more queuing. Mr. Holland also suggested the exit (curb cut) onto Falls Road be narrowed.  Larry Williams stated every parking space on the site is important and the lane is already wide enough to allow two lanes of traffic.  Joe Segale stated though there was not an issue with queuing with one traffic lane, adding a second lane for exit onto Falls Road does allow more storage (queue capacity) and safety.  There was mention that cars parked in front of the restaurant attract customers.  Cars parked in the spaces will have to wait to pull out into the queue if there is a line of cars.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Bennett, neighbor, mentioned the issue of drainage. Steve Vock stated VTrans wants no drainage structures in the right-of-way. There will be a driveway culvert and the pipes “daylight” before the culvert.  Mr. Bennett asked who is responsible to clean out the drainage system when it becomes plugged with silt, noting he has already spent lots of money regrading his driveway to avoid flooding. Mr. Vock stated VTrans is dictating what is to be done. VTrans maintains all culverts in their right-of-way, but is hesitant to deal with individual culverts unless it is an issue for their travelway. The new drainage should decrease sediment going into Mr. Bennett’s driveway. Liam Murphy advised Mr. Bennett is using VTrans’ right-of-way to access his driveway, and as a condition of this use, VTrans is allowing a culvert to be maintained by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett interjected water from the applicant’s site flows to his driveway. Larry Williams stated most of the water going onto the Bennett property is runoff from Route 7 and will be taken care of by the new drainage system. Mr. Bennett pointed out the collection points in the parking lot of the inn will collect silt and send this material into the ditch which eventually will fill up. Mr. Bennett again asked who is responsible for cleaning out the ditch when necessary. Rick Peterson urged the applicant and Mr. Bennett to discuss the matter and come to a settlement. Mr. Bennett asked that a condition of approval be drafted saying drainage from the site shall not back up and flood his property.  Attorney Murphy reiterated the culvert is in the VTrans right-of-way. The applicant’s proposed drainage system will improve the situation, but regardless of the project, Mr. Bennett may need to on occasion clear out the culvert.  Steve Vock stated the driveway culvert is identified with all the properties going to the north to the river; there is a cumulative impact. Mr. Bennett argued the situation is pre-existing, and all the discharge from the parking lot was not going into the culvert.

 

David Webster, resident, urged the Planning Commission to make sure the building as proposed conforms to the zoning overlay relative to height. Peter Richardson stated the building is 35’ high. Dean Pierce asked about the maximum building height of the existing structure. Larry Williams said the building is not more than 30’ high within 15’ of the property line.

 

There were no further comments.  Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Larry Williams and John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Wakefield explained the proposal for warehousing on the site at 4750 Shelburne Road to satisfy the needs of an anticipated tenant. The plan includes removing 10,000 c.y. of ledge at the rear of the building and constructing two loading docks and a screened outdoor storage area.  The applicant gave the Planning Commission information on trip generation, outdoor lighting, building lighting, and screening materials.  The revised site plan showed parking in the front and rear of the building. The applicant noted some inaccuracies were found in the Staff Report so a new application was submitted with current information. The building is at 4750 Shelburne Road, not 4740 Shelburne Road as referred to the Staff Report. The building was previously used for manufacturing, but has been approved by the Zoning Board for warehousing.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the retail component. Mr. Wakefield confirmed there is an office use in 2,500 s.f. of space in the building and the company sells copiers, but has very low retail volume.  Chairman Peterson asked about the nature of the warehousing. Mr. Wakefield stated an office supply distributor will be using the building.  Larry Williams further explained the tenant sells office furniture and products, but the building will be a warehouse, distribution function.  The existing showroom for the Xerox dealership will remain.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the outside storage. Mr. Williams stated currently there is no outside storage contemplated for the business, but there may be in the future.  Rick Peterson commented it is difficult to determine screening without knowing the material to be stored outside.

 

Rick Peterson asked about trip ends. John Wakefield referred to Harbour Industries statistics which showed 128 trips in/out of the site per day (total trips of 256). The back building was originally designed for manufacturing so there are 82 parking spaces and more traffic generated than the proposed use. For all three buildings on the eight acre site, there are 161 trips during peak hours (total of 322 trips per day). Larry Williams estimated approximately 100 trips total per day for the warehouse use.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 1/12/06. Dean Pierce stated the site plan is needed because the application is for an amendment to the site plan. Also, there is significant excavating proposed on the site. The Shelburne Natural Resources Committee had comments relative to hours of operation, trucks, noise, and perhaps having a wildlife consultant review the proposal for impacts.  Mr. Wakefield stated there are comments from Vermont Fish & Wildlife, the project has to go through Act 250 review, and a private wildlife consultant will be hired to review the proposal. Larry Williams addressed the matter of excavating on the site for the loading docks (the reason it took so long to secure a tenant was because there were no loading docks on the site), noting on the east side of the building there is only 12’ at grade, then substantial cliffs. Office space is on the south side, and the space on the west side of the building is occupied. The north side works best for the loading docks.

 

There was confusion regarding the information submitted and what is applicable to the current proposal. Dean Pierce stated the staff notes are based on the previous application which has nothing to do with the current application. It was noted the application was scanned and somehow got integrated with the previous proposal.  Larry Williams clarified the proposal is to add four loading docks in the back of the existing building approved for manufacturing and now changed to warehousing which will generate less traffic. The application will go through Act 250 review and impact on wildlife will be discussed.  Following further discussion, the Planning Commission wanted the applicable and accurate information on the proposal.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Gibbs explained the proposal to subdivide the 10-acre lot off Sledrunner Road with wetlands on the northwest side by Eagles Nest Road into two five acre lots.  Access to the lots would be from Sledrunner Road along the high point of the property. Utilities (electric, water) will be underground from Harbor Road. There will be on-site sewer (mound system with a primary replacement area on each lot). There will be lake access on the southerly border of the Ram Sinha lot (lake lot). There will be a 10’ easement on the north boundary for the two lots. The two easements will be adjacent so the easement is actually 20’ wide.  Density allows for three lots to be created, but only two lots are proposed. There will be a 75’ buffer from the northerly line of lot #2 to the building envelope. There will be a 50’ buffer from the wetlands boundary.  Originally a Planned Residential Development was proposed with three lots and the cottage lot was to be subdivided as well.  The current proposal is for two lots only.

 

Rick Peterson asked about locating the driveway other than on the high point of the property.  Mr. Gibbs said it is possible to be on the easterly portion of Sledrunner Road and have the entrance to the houses behind the house. Lot #1 is on a rise, but Lot #2 is below the rise. The development could also be moved closer to the lake. The driveways should be behind the houses so pavement is not visible from the lake.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/12/06.  Dean Pierce stated the Paths Committee has not commented on the proposal as yet. The Natural Resources Committee had concerns related to limiting the tree cutting between the houses so less is viewed from the lake. The Natural Resources Committee was also interested to know what is planned for the other lots, especially the lake lot. Mr. Gibbs reviewed a list of five items agreed to by the property owner and the neighbors, including no further subdivision of Lot #1, Lot #2, the cottage lot, or the lake lot, decreasing the building envelope on Lot #2 by 50’ more each on the northerly and westerly sides, moving the septic systems as far away from the wetlands as possible, screening the path easement on the north side of the southerly line between the Zachary lot and the Sinha property coupled with the easement for Pierson to create a defined corridor and screen the Zachary’s house (Reg Gignoux suggested the path be made to look natural, not like a lined corridor), and prohibiting trucks except for maintenance purposes (golf carts may be allowed).

 

Hilda White asked if the cottage lot has access to the lake. Mr. Gibbs stated the lot has its own access and the lake lot has frontage on the lake.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Liam Murphy, attorney representing the Bush, Pierson, and Zachary families, thanked Dr. Sinha for the cooperative relationship with the neighbors. The details of the agreement with the neighbors will be fleshed out in the covenants and/or conditions of approval.  Reg Gignoux pointed out the information must become part of the application if the Planning Commission is to propose conditions of approval on the lots that are not part of the application. Mr. Murphy noted the conditions are part of the original application submitted by Mr. Bush. It was suggested an amendment to the previous subdivision application be done to cover all the lots except the cottage lot.

 

Doug Riley, Sledrunner Properties, stated the covenants are doing well to address the problems of the original subdivision so the current proposal can be supported provided there are covenants in place.

 

There were no further comments. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Randy Rowland and Jim Gears appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Randy Rowland explained the reason for the transfer of property from the Gears lot is to provide more area by the (Rowland) house. The boundary line follows the natural tree line on the property.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/12/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

None.

 

MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Rick Peterson (Chairman); Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Tucker Holland, Kay Kraushaar, Peter Gibbs.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Tim O’Brien, Dan Poplawski, Martha Wellman McKay, RJ McKay, Karen Leonard, Sue Dixon, Chris Davis, Suzanne Roberts, Pat Califano, Frank Califano, Laurie Coswell Burke, Marshall Webb, Alec Webb, John Kassel, Dave Marshall, Steve Edwards, Martha Edwards, Bob Roesler, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (1/12/06)

3.      Sketch Plan Review, All Souls Interfaith Gathering, Inc./Meach Cove Real Estate Trust, LLC, 291 Bostwick Farm Road (SUB06-03)

4.      Final Plan Review Amendment, Town of Shelburne/Field House, LLC (successor to Bullrock, Inc.), 154 Turtle Lane, 14-36 McCabe Circle (formerly 19 Harbor Road) & 166 Athletic Drive (SUB04-06R3)

5.      Site Plan Amendment, Timothy O’Brien/Ray L. Pecor-Lake Champlain Transportation, 2997 Shelburne Road (SP95-6R3)

6.      Site Plan Amendment, Stephen Edwards/Ray L. Pecor-Lake Champlain Transportation, 2997 Shelburne Road (SP95-6R4)

7.      Site Plan Review, RSM Management Services, Inc./Bruce Righi, 4109 Shelburne Road (SP06-02)

8.      Other Business, Correspondence

9.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and introduced Peter Gibbs, new Planning Commission member.

 

 

Dave Marshall with CEA and Chris Davis with Meach Cove Trust appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMENTS

Dave Marshall oriented the assemblage to the site using an ortho map and explained the proposal to decrease the 11 acre parcel to seven acres and expand the existing use on the property. The Channing House is presently a spiritual center under the guidance of Mary Abele. Presently there are gatherings of up to 45 people. The proposal is to formalize the use and expand the building to support 175-seat capacity.  The site is well shielded by land features. Views of the building are limited from Bostwick Road. There is an existing hedgerow which provides screening. The land around the site is in agricultural use. The building will have an internal sprinkler system for fire protection (will connect to municipal water service).  A fire pond will be constructed as well.  Mr. Marshall explained the decrease in acreage is to avoid Act 250 jurisdiction. The proposal complies with Shelburne’s zoning regulations. Information on the viewshed from points where the building is visible will be provided. There was discussion of traffic and the traffic study done for the previous proposal for the site (“Field of Dreams” proposal). Mr. Marshall stated with the spiritual center proposal, level of service “B” will be maintained at the intersection of Route 7/Bostwick Road. Regarding parking, the applicant does not want to over-build, and even wants to phase construction as needed, but the people coming to the Channing House must be accommodated with parking. There is no other means of getting to the site without driving a car (the site is not on the bus route or located within walking distance of the village).  Parking will not obstruct the emergency access. Overflow parking areas have been identified. There was discussion of public recreation paths. Mr. Marshall noted the property owner (Abele) allows access to their land, but requests people register on their initial visit.  The Abeles are open to discussion of a path connection from School Street to the town beach, but it is not certain if now is the time for this discussion due to the isolation of the lot at present.

 

Chris Davis stated the application is for the spiritual piece of the original Field of Dreams project. There are no other proposals for development. If and when this occurs, then all of the parts of the master plan for the larger holdings will be discussed.

 

Dave Marshall noted if the Planning Commission is interested in doing a site visit, the site has been flagged to show the parking area and building floor area.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the location of the fire pond relative to the building. Mr. Marshall stated the pond will be outside the oval of the driveway.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the waste water disposal area. Dave Marshall showed the location of the system on the site plan.  Chris Davis explained the regulations require that an alternate site be located even though the existing system is in fine working order. The alternate site will become the primary system. Dave Marshall further explained the existing system was constructed after 1973 and must comply with the new rules and that is why two new systems have been designated.

 

Rick Peterson asked about any conditions on the application from the Zoning Board. Dean Pierce noted the final decision has not been issued as yet (it is in draft form). The Zoning Coordinator is working on the written decision. The reason the application was before the Zoning Board is due to the change of use. The Zoning Board issued conditional use approval. Mr. Pierce could not recall any stipulations issued by the Zoning Board.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the master plan for the property, noting the application is another small parcel being subdivided from the larger property. Dave Marshall pointed out the subdivision is existing. The request is for a boundary line adjustment. Chris Davis reiterated there are not any plans (for further development). There were issues that stopped the Field of Dreams project. The spiritual center is the only component that could be brought forward.  John Abele’s dream of an ultimate conference center was realized in Toronto, Canada. The spiritual center is Mary Abele’s dream.  Rick Peterson emphasized the Planning Commission’s continued interest in working with the Abeles on a master plan for the property.  Mr. Peterson asked about the possibility of meeting with the Paths Committee. Mr. Marshall stated the property owners have indicated openness to discussion of path connections.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/26/06.  Dean Pierce reported the Paths Committee gave a formal recommendation that a path proposal be incorporated into the application. The routing of the path to the beach is gleaned from earlier applications for the property.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Alec Webb, Shelburne Farms, mentioned the residential reading complex on the western end of the property, and expressed hope the area becomes a conserved public/private landscape.  The path connections are a neat idea, but may be premature to require now, stated Mr. Webb, though there could be conversations with the Abeles. Shelburne Farms could be included as well.

 

Martha McKay, Wake Robin resident and member of All Souls for the past seven years, spoke in support of the application. Ms. McKay stated the Abeles have granted permission to walk their property on designated roads. The property is beautiful and it is a privilege to walk and enjoy the land.

 

Jim McKay, Wake Robin resident, stated he and his wife, Martha, were married in the Channing House chapel. Mr. McKay spoke in support of the application, and noted many other residents from Wake Robin are in support of the project and would have attended the Planning Commission meeting personally, but had a function at Wake Robin to attend. Mr. and Mrs. McKay noted they missed the function at Wake Robin to express their support for the application before the Planning Commission.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Paul Bohne, Shelburne Town Manager, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bohne reviewed his memo, dated 11/29/05. VTrans has been contacted regarding retiming the lights. The Shelburne Road project has required retiming of all the traffic lights on Shelburne Road (Route 7) in the project area so the town did not want to spend the resources to do the data collection for retiming the light at Harbor Road. There is no firm schedule for the retiming work. The request before the Planning Commission is for a postponement of the condition of approval related to the retiming of the traffic light at Harbor Road until September 1, 2006.  The pedestrian signal installation is in the state construction plan for the upcoming construction season, continued Mr. Bohne. A similar request for postponement of the condition of approval for the pedestrian signals until 9/1/06 is also being made.  On a side note, Mr. Bohne reported he has personally witnessed there is less traffic queuing on Harbor Road than a year ago, and drivers do obey the ‘No Turn’ sign into school grounds when coming from the athletic club. McCabe Circle is being used as a turn around. With regard to retiming the lights, there may not be much gain during the day since Route 7 will be given the benefit of the traffic flow, stated Mr. Bohne.  Reg Gignoux pointed out when the turn lane is formalized, the timing of the light will help. Mr. Bohne said the Selectboard discussed the turn lane project (cost is approximately $50,000) and decided to hold doing the lane until more information is gathered (the update of the village plan is complete, study of the intersection by the MPO is done, and the impact of the Shelburne Inn project on the intersection is known), and to see if the residents in the village are interested in having the left turn lane. Rick Peterson acknowledged the positive of gathering data on the intersection after the Shelburne Inn is operational and the negative of the time taken to implement improvements to the intersection/timing of the lights.  Mr. Peterson asked if the town can do the retiming. Mr. Bohne stated Dufresne Henry has the contract and will compile the data. VTrans controls the intersection. Mr. Peterson stressed all that is needed is the data for the retiming since the lights are in place. Mr. Bohne agreed, and noted the timing will have to be redone for the pedestrian signals.  Reg Gignoux stressed the pedestrian crossings need to be included in the data collection, especially during the school year.  The Planning Commission emphasized the need to do the retiming as soon as possible. Tucker Holland pointed out if the work is not to be complete before the end of the school year, the town should collect the data so VTrans is looking at pertinent information. Mr. Bohne agreed it does not matter who compiles the data which must be collected during the school year. J. McDonald (contractor) wants to get the paving done as soon as possible (it is an Act 250 condition that this would be done).

 

Mr. Bohne reported on the town’s efforts to lease the rail station property from VTrans for a municipal parking lot. The town would maintain the property.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/26/06. The Planning Commission discussed not allowing additional amendments to the final plan for the project.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tim O’Brien and Dan Poplawski appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Tim O’Brien stated there are no changes to the site plan. The change of use for the dry cleaning service was approved by the Zoning Board.  A hair salon and financial service occupy space in the front of the building. The back of the building has small cubicles of space. The dry cleaning business (pick up/drop off service) will occupy less than 800 s.f. of space. There is other office space in the building. There was discussion of handicap access. The applicant noted the building in the back is at grade. People will likely park by the front door of the dry cleaning business to drop off or pick up their clothing. People parking in the spaces will have to walk through the parking lot to the building. There is no sidewalk or entry door at the back of the building.

 

Rick Peterson asked about hours of operation. Mr. Poplawski stated the busiest time for the business is between 8 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., noontime, and 4 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The hours of operation will likely be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The businesses in the front of the building are open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 1/26/06. Dean Pierce stated the parking requirement for the proposed dry cleaning service is six parking spaces.  As the building space transitions to uses with greater parking demand, there is impact on the available parking on the site. Tim O’Brien stated there is room for additional parking on the parcel. Presently, there is vacancy in the building, but as the space is filled, the need for more parking will be addressed.

 

Reg Gignoux mentioned that the requirements for lighting and landscaping on the site must be met.  Dean Pierce added the approval conditions of the earlier application still stand. The property owner needs to be made aware the conditions of approval from the previous application must be met.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the concrete pads shown on the site plan (by the entrance). It was noted the concrete pad has been replaced with pavement (nine foot wide pavement in front of the doors to the parking lot).

 

The Planning Commission discussed required plaza signage for the site because the uses at the site make it appear like a plaza.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Steve Edwards, coin shop owner, pointed out there is storage space and hallway space inside the building that is included in the square footage calculation used to determine the number of parking spaces needed. Dean Pierce explained how the parking requirement is calculated, noting the square footage from the previous approval (for office space) was used.  Reg Gignoux observed due to the nature of the dry cleaning business (drop off/pick up), there will likely not be many people coming to the site at once or staying for more than five minutes or so (just time enough to pick up or drop off their clothing).  There was further discussion of parking and possibly waiting for additional uses in the building before re-evaluating the parking to see if additional parking is warranted.

 

There were no further comments.  Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Edwards appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Edwards stated his coin shop will be open early on Saturdays and by appointment at present.  Mr. Edwards reviewed the parking for the uses in the building. Per his calculation, there are three unused spaces. There are temporary signs in place for the business.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a staff report on the application, dated 1/26/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. Chairman Peterson closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bob Roesler appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Roesler stated the site has changed from a convenience store to a pizzeria restaurant. There is a handicap access ramp on the front of the building. The dumpster will be screened and landscaping will be done on the easterly boundary. The access road to the antique store to the north was done with the Route 7 reconstruction and without consultation with the lessee of the property. Efforts to date have been unsuccessful in getting the road moved to the rear of the property.  There is parking between the access road and the curbing so patrons have to cross the access road to come to the restaurant (not a desirable situation). The handicap parking is on the south side of the building. Effort is being made to correct as many of the issues as possible on the nonconforming property to comply as much as is feasible with the regulations.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/26/06.  Receipt of a letter from Sean McGrath was noted (letter received 1/24/06). The letter indicates Mr. McGrath’s willingness to attempt to comply with the items outlined in the staff report. Dean Pierce explained the agreement between the property owners and VTrans regarding the access road. Easements for the access road were never filed by VTrans as required, but the road was built as part of the Route 7 project. The property owners waived claims for compensation for access. There was discussion of having the access road in the back of the property. Mr. Roesler observed there appears to be no conflict with the northerly use (antique store) and the Marko’s use.  Rick Peterson expressed concern about the access road and a change of use at the northerly site. Dean Pierce commented it may be more difficult to do something about the access road once easements are filed. Mr. Roesler noted the access road is shown on the plan because it exists. The application is not for approval of the access road. The hours of the restaurant do not conflict with the hours of the antique store. A condition saying that no formal approval of the access road is given is acceptable, stated Mr. Roesler. Hilda White suggested a condition of approval stating the access drive shall be moved to the easterly side of the building if there is a change to the north resulting in a higher density.

 

It was noted the Zoning Board will be reviewing the application on 2/6/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Dean Pierce reported a letter to the PSB has been sent requesting withdraw of the request for a hearing relative to the Villanti wind turbine.  A pre-hearing conference memorandum was received.

 

Tuesday, 1/31/06, 7 p.m. – Bike Path Study.

Thursday, 2/2/06 – Work Session on Zoning. Dean Pierce will forward comments from the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee.

Wednesday, 2/15/06, 7 p.m. – Village Plan.

 

MOTION by Claude LaPierre, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.

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