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

ADMINISTRATION:           Susie Leonard, Interim Zoning Coordinator; Paul Bohne, Town Manager.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dave Marshall, Mark Neagley, Mac Hayden, Norman LeBoeuf, Richard Thut, Larry Williams, David Webster, Liam Murphy, Bill Posey, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. John Holt, newest member of the Zoning Board, and Susie Leonard, interim zoning coordinator were introduced. The procedure to be followed at the meeting was explained.

 

None.

 

Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/13/06. Mr. Koerner noted the permit is being requested retroactively (the garage is already built on the site of the original structure).

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dave Marshall oriented the assemblage to the site and reviewed ortho-photos showing the two-car garage which replaced a four-car garage. A permit from the Planning Commission was secured for the project. The existing structure does not meet the PUD buffer requirements and, therefore, is non-complying. The structure could be relocated to be in compliance or a conditional use permit could be issued, suggested Mr. Marshall. It was discovered a conditional use permit was not on file during a title search of the property. There is an existing hedgerow around the garage so the structure is well screened.

 

Susie Leonard mentioned comments in support of the project have been received from the neighbors (Kilborn and Hill).  It was noted the square footage has been increased, but encroachment in the buffer has been decreased. The structure is not within the 100’ setback. The parking area was created by the Pillars. No part of the original garage structure was used. The foundation of the new garage is poured concrete.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Boris Funtow, SECOND by Steve Waltien, to retroactively approve CU06-09, conditional use application to modify an existing, non-complying structure (garage) and associated site improvements at 333 Morgan Drive as presented with the following condition:

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

Mac Hayden appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/13/06. Mr. Koerner noted the conditional use approval for the repair/reconstruction of a shed is retroactive.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Hayden stated there was conversation with Brian Bigalow approximately a year and a half ago regarding repair of the roof on the shed, but after review of the condition of the shed the contractor advised more work is necessary. Work finally resumed on the shed which was rebuilt at the same height, width, and on the same foundation. Windows have been added. The existing structure is no more non-conforming that previously. No negative comments from the neighbors on the shed have been received.

 

Mr. Funtow noted the staff report needs to be modified to reflect no change in the dimensions of the shed relative to the yard requirements, and the shed is an existing non-complying structure.  Tom Koerner asked the applicant to submit pictures of each side of the shed (four photos) showing the elevation.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Steve Waltien, SECOND by Gwen Webster, to retroactively approve CU06-10, conditional use application to rebuild a non-complying structure (shed) at 182 Depot Road as presented with the following condition:

1.         The applicant shall provide a photograph of each side of the shed (four separate pictures) showing the elevations.

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

 

Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application. Gwen Webster recused herself from deliberation/decision on the application. Steve Waltien disclosed past business activity with the applicant and offered to recuse himself from discussion/decision on the application. Following brief discussion, the Board felt there is no conflict of interest and Mr. Waltien can participate in review of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/13/06.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Larry Williams briefly reviewed the original proposal for 14 condominium units in the existing building envelope. A decision was subsequently made to reduce the number of living units to nine and change the footprint.  The original footprint was 11,160 s.f. The site plan approval dated August, 2005, reflects the 12,754 s.f. footprint approved by the Zoning Board.  The Planning Commission approved a footprint of 13,164 s.f.  Mr. Williams summarized the current requests before the Zoning Board:

1.      Approve the site plan approved by the Planning Commission. The parking lot has been reconfigured to yield more green space.

2.      Remove the building from the foundation up and replace with a building 34’ in height. The ceiling on the existing first floor is 8’high. The ceiling on the existing second floor is 7.5’ high. The interior framing is concrete block. The floor is concrete slab. An interior sprinkler system will be installed below the existing floor on the second story which will impact the ceiling height. Removal of the floor will allow the sprinkler system to be installed per the fire code. The Design Review Committee wanted a new roof form, and the proposed gable roof is more appropriate for the building and the area. The existing roof is 29’ high.

3.      Rebuild from the foundation up. New construction is subject to new setback requirements, but what is being proposed is actually re-construction, not new construction. A clear definition in the zoning regulations or R-PUD regulations of “redevelopment” relative to new construction is needed. Rebuilding from the foundation up means the site work is already done (20% of the existing building – by value - is in place). A wall could be left in place to equal 22% of original construction or whatever the threshold is to qualify as redevelopment rather than new construction. R-PUD allows an increase in footprint by 25%. What is proposed is well below the percentage.  The height of the Inn is 39’ above the first floor of the motel. The condominium roof height will be 41’ above grade when complete.  The Inn is 13’ higher than the existing hotel. The proposal will increase the height by five more feet.  The intent of the R-PUD is to try to maintain the traditional village pattern, and a steeper roof line is more appropriate for the site. Taking down the motel was not contemplated when the R-PUD regulations were drafted.

 

Liam Murphy, attorney for the applicant, explained the Inn and the building to the south of the driveway are being conserved and renovated. The project is being viewed as a whole, not separate buildings. The motel was built in 1969 by Freeman French Freeman and Pizzagalli Construction. The walls do not allow the insulation that is desired. The roof is wood truss, but not of a shape that is desirable today.

 

New construction means something that is built which previously was not there, stated Mr. Williams, but what is proposed is rehabilitation/rebuilding of an existing structure.  Mr. Funtow agreed the structure is existing and there is not a good definition of “rehabilitation and renovation of existing structure”, but if the existing structure is removed and then replaced with another structure, the existing structure or a portion thereof will not be present. The overlay district was meant to address existing structures, not the replacement thereof.

 

Mr. Waltien asked what is changed from the application presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams stated the Planning Commission approved the site plan with the intention the building will be removed to the foundation.

 

Mr. Funtow observed the elevations with dimensions are not part of the submitted materials. Mr. Funtow referred to restricting building height within 15’ of the lot line.  Mr. Williams stated the new building height conforms to the regulations. Overall dimensions have been submitted.  Mr. Funtow asked about density calculations, residential/nonresidential. Mr. Williams replied the Zoning Board already approved 14 units and the information has been submitted. Mr. Funtow pointed out the necessary information should be resubmitted with the current request(s).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gwen Webster, resident, questioned why a variance is not necessary relative to building height. Per R-PUD Section 4.h, if a building is 15’ or farther from the property line, the height can be 35’. No part of the structure can be greater than 30’ high if the structure is within 15’ of the boundary line. Ms. Webster questioned how the proposed building height (roof) can be approved without a variance.  Larry Williams pointed out the ordinance says a structure can not be 30’ high within 15’ of the property line, but that does not mean a building (or portion thereof) farther than 15’ from the lot line can not be 30’ high at any point.  Ms. Webster also commented on new versus existing construction, noting existing construction means the building remains at the existing height.

 

David Webster, resident, acknowledged the applicant’s interpretation of the ordinance, and noted his own request for the height ruling in the overlay ordinance, but the intent of the ordinance is not to allow building height greater than 30’ within 15’ of the property line.  Mr. Williams countered that the proposal will improve the appearance of the building. The Design Review Committee wanted a different roof form which will require more height.  Liam Murphy stated with regard to the slope of the roof, no portion of the building is 30’ high within the 15’ setback, but moving farther from the property line, the roof peak is over 30’ high.  Mr. Waltien observed no more or less sunlight is allowed in if the building is within the setback and is 35’ high.  Mr. Murphy stated the neighbor, Stuart Bennett, supports the proposed building height and is willing to submit a letter stating his support.  David Webster cautioned about setting a precedent, and stressed the need for a concrete interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Williams recalled when the regulations were drafted, there was the assumption the motel building was 40’ high. The intent of the statement relative to “or existing structure” was ‘whichever is greater’. Tom Koerner summarized the Zoning Board must determine what is considered new construction and what is considered rehabilitation.  Mr. Williams reiterated the foundation will remain so the proposal can be considered reconstruction. Also, if the proposed height is not to be allowed, then the roof will remain as is. Mr. Webster again stressed his concern about setting a precedent, and that it appears the overlay district was designed by the applicant for the applicant. Mr. Webster questioned what will happen with other properties in the area.

 

Liam Murphy pointed out if the Zoning Board does not approve the roof, then the applicant must again go before the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee to explain why a different roof shape and height than what was wanted by the two boards is being built. Mr. Murphy stressed the applicant is trying to do something good in the village, and requested a joint hearing with the review boards of the town so the applicant does not continue to go back and forth between boards. The hotel is a permitted use on the property and the worst that could happen for the town is the structure remains as is.  Steve Waltien pointed out the review boards and review process is the system in Shelburne and applies to all projects/applicants.

 

Tom Koerner asked about the intent of the R-PUD ordinance when drafted (ordinance adopted in August, 2005). Mr. Williams explained it was thought the town would be cooperative in the prime redevelopment project and that the existing structure could be redeveloped, but it became evident that it was not cost effective to reuse the existing structure as planned.  Mr. Koerner asked if the R-PUD regulations will apply to other places in town. Paul Bohne, Town Manager, confirmed there are some lots where R-PUD regulations could apply. Mr. Williams pointed out there are numerous levels of review in the town system and lots of criteria to meet so a precedent is not being set if the request to replace the motel is granted.

 

A gentleman in the audience spoke in support of the project as proposed.  Another gentleman in the audience felt a new structure could be designed with the same roof height, and that it appears the R-PUD ordinance as drafted allows the property owner to get as much use out of their property as possible.  The gentleman also felt the resubmittal by the applicant was planned. Mr. Williams interjected there is no grand strategy to move the project forward incrementally. The ordinance was drafted in cooperation with town staff to apply to the entire town, not just one property. There is no conspiracy. Tweaks to the ordinance may be needed, and that is what is being requested at this juncture.

 

A gentleman in the audience stated his interest in possibly purchasing one of the condominium units, but not if the project will take years to come to fruition. The individual spoke in support of condominiums in the village.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Zoning Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the regular meeting.  The decision and/or findings of the Board will be on file in the Planning Office.

 

Gwen Webster returned to the Zoning Board.

 

Norm LeBoeuf appeared on behalf of the application. Steve Waltien disclosed past business activity with Mr. LeBoeuf and offered to recuse himself. Following discussion, the Zoning Board felt there was no conflict of interest.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/13/06.  Tom Koerner observed a variance may not be necessary because the proposed addition does not exceed the allowance over the original structure.  The applicant withdrew the variance request.

 

Susie Leonard stated no comments from the neighbors have been received on the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. LeBoeuf explained the plan to renovate the 110 s.f. kitchen in the house at 206 Windmill Bay Road. A bay window will be installed on the west wall in the existing overhang of the deck. The addition is 13 s.f. of floor space and 93 c.f. of volume. An additional six linear feet of counter space and some floor space will be gained so the kitchen will have useful, workable space.  Changes to the kitchen will not exceed a 50% increase of the original structure.  Details of the calculations for existing and proposed/expanded space  have been submitted by the applicant.

 

Corrections to the staff report include changing the additional square footage under Project History, 11/6/86, to 442 s.f. and correcting the date of 11/3/86.  It was clarified the second floor has not and will not be added. Under Zoning Evaluation, Conditional Use Request, first sentence, the word “nonconforming” should be changed to “noncomplying”.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Gwen Webster, SECOND by John Holt, to approve CU06-11, conditional use application to expand a non-conforming structure (kitchen addition of approximately 13 s.f.) at 206 Windmill Bay Road as presented with the acknowledgement that the proper/required calculations are on file and with the following conditions:

1.                  Approval of the expansion utilizes all possible expansion potential on the site and no additional expansions shall be allowed.

2.                  The site improvements shall comply with the site pan, date stamped February 17, 2006, and titled “Pizzagalli Residence; Current Owner Pamela Linton”, Sheet 4 by J. Graham Goldsmith Architects, and plans titled “Pamela Linton, 206 Windmill Bay Road” Sheet A1 by HJL, Inc. which were submitted with the conditional use application and approved by the Zoning Board during the public hearing on March 13, 2006.

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

 

4.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION by Steve Waltien, SECOND by Gwen Webster, to approve the minutes of 2/6/06 as written. VOTING:  4 ayes, 1 abstention (Holt); motion carried.

 

Following brief discussion it was agreed a statement will be added to the minutes under “Deliberation/Decision” indicating the decision and/or findings of the Board on an application that was discussed in Deliberative Session are on file in the Planning Office.

 

5.         SIGN FINDINGS OF FACT DOCUMENT(S)

The Board signed the Findings of Fact documents for CU06-08 (Righi application) and CU06-03 (Atkin application).

 

Gwen Webster left prior to the start of Deliberative Session.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 8:45 p.m.