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

ADMINISTRATOR:            Susie Leonard, Interim Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Larry Williams, Richard Hamlin, Hilda White, Dorothy Campbell, Bruce Campbell, Roger Stone, Katharine Stone, Dennis Sanders, Dee Dee O’Brien, Dick Elkins, Ellen McShane, Paul Boisvert, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., reviewed the hearing process and establishment of “interested party” status. Introductions were made.

 

Larry Williams with Redstone Commercial Group appeared on behalf of the application. Gwen Webster recused herself and joined the audience. Steve Waltien disclosed a past business relationship with the applicant and offered to recuse himself. Following brief discussion, the Zoning Board concluded there is no conflict of interest and Mr. Waltien can participate in deliberation/discussion of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reviewed the Staff Report, dated 04/03/06, and noted the Board requested an interpretation of the new zoning regulations related to language for a Redevelopment Planned Unit Development (RPUD) from the Town Attorney, Steve Stitzel. Ms. Leonard reported Attorney Stitzel indicated in a telephone message that he was working on the request. Mr. Koerner expressed concern about the lack of a more timely response (with a written opinion) from the Town Attorney. Ms. Leonard did not know when a response would be received. Ms. Leonard provided the Board with a memo from the Town Planner, dated 04/03/06, that included a section of the 03/23/06 Planning Commission draft minutes covering discussion of the RPUD.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Larry Williams said that the Redstone Group looked at the feasibility of rehabilitation of the shell of the existing brick motel building, but there was no good way to justify the expense of the work and get a good return on investment. The old proposal was to gut the building and work with the brick shell (on a concrete slab), including the second floor and existing ceiling heights. It was not feasible to use the wall structure and ceiling heights to accommodate the water sprinkler system as recommended by the Fire Department. If the structure can not be taken down to the foundation, then the idea of rehabilitation of the building needs to be revisited. Tom Koerner interjected that the Zoning Board has not made a decision on the rehabilitation/new construction issue (and has asked legal counsel for clarification on the matter). The Planning Commission’s conditions of approval at their 1-12-06 meeting had addressed reconstruction of the building within an existing footprint. Reconstruction of the existing motel was authorized at the 01/12/06 Planning Commission meeting. Susie Leonard pointed out the Planning Commission minutes reflect that the applicant would keep whatever is necessary to stay within the bylaws. Mr. Koerner expressed concern that language in the regulations could be interpreted a number of ways. Boris Funtow read the bylaws related to rehabilitation/renovation of existing structures, noting the request to the Town Attorney for a legal interpretation pertaining to this section. The proposed building height within 15’ of the property line is also an issue.

 

Steve Waltien summarized that the bottom line is the need to determine the appropriate regulation for the community. The Board requested an interpretation from the Town Attorney thirty days ago which has not yet been received. Mr. Waltien apologized to the applicant for the delay.

 

Mr. Funtow suggested the Board discuss the application in Deliberative Session. Mr. Williams cited the timeframe for reconstruction of the existing motel and requested a decision from the Board. If the application is denied, the project will be scaled down. Mr. Koerner asked about the original plan for 14 units that has changed to nine units. Mr. Williams explained the sprinkler system requested by the Fire Chief installed lowers the height of the already low ceilings, making them too small.  The Inn portion of the project is receiving federal historic tax credits, however, the motel portion is not. Mr. Williams felt that the legal opinion (regarding the rehab/new construction issue) will not be helpful to the project.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gwen Webster urged the Board to consider the height issue because a building can not have a height of 35’ within the 15’ side yard setback, and that was the intent of the section in the new RPUD regulations. Boris Funtow agreed that any portion of a building within the 15’ side yard setback cannot have a height greater than 30’. Ms. Webster conceded that the portion of the (motel) building that goes around to the back of the site can have greater height, but allowing building height beyond the regulations for a building within the 15’ side yard setback will set a dangerous precedent for other properties.  Mr. Williams opined it does not make sense that a side yard setback of 14’11” would allow a building of 30’ in height and a building of 35’ in height would be allowed with a 15’ or greater set back. Ms. Webster pointed out the height of her house can not be increased to 35’ due to the setbacks. A 35’ high building on the property line would look out of place. Mr. Williams countered that the PUD limits the height of the building eve to 20’ and that protects adjoining properties and addresses solar issues. It was noted the current height of the existing building is 29’ and the proposed height is 34’.

 

The Board will discuss the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the regular meeting.  Decision(s) and/or findings of the Board will be on file in the Planning Office.

 

Ms. Webster rejoined the Board.

 

S. Douglas Cramer Jr, owner, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reviewed the Staff Report, dated 04/03/06, noting the house is within the front yard setback and therefore non-complying. Mr. Koerner asked for photographs of the house.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Cramer presented a site drawing of the proposed construction, and noted the location of Shelburne/Hinesburg Road. The 12’ x 13’ two-story addition on the side of the house and a west facing balcony are proposed. The addition will not increase the nonconformance of the structure. It was noted the neighbors were notified of the proposed modification and no feedback was received.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATOIN/DECISION

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Funtow, to approve CU06-12, the request by S. Douglas Cramer, Jr. for modifications to an existing non-complying structure (§1620.2.2) consisting of a two-story addition and balcony at 826 Shelburne/Hinesburg Road in the Rural 1 District (Article III), and that the Conditional Use Evaluation and Criteria have been met as set forth in the Staff Report, dated 04/03/06.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Funtow observed if the two-story addition becomes an additional bedroom, the applicant will need to modify the septic system.

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

 

The application has been withdrawn.

 

Richard Hamlin, engineer, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reviewed the Staff Report, dated 04/03/06, noting the property owner decided to renovate a camp.  Ms. Leonard reviewed the new footprint of the proposed project.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Hamlin gave an overview of the proposal including:

 

Ms. Leonard explained that conflicting information was found about the history of the Hansen parcels. Some sources list the parcels as separate lots. The Town Attorney is looking into whether the lots have merged.

 

There was discussion of the location of the 102’ lakeshore elevation (Mr. Hamlin explained the proposed building will be at the102.75’ elevation) and the need for flood proofing certification (Mr. Hamlin said no additional flood proofing on the interior is necessary and the design does not include a basement). A proposed sewer pump station at the 103’ elevation was discussed, noting that the zoning bylaws (Lakeshore overlay, page 44) require a 75’ setback from the 102’ elevation for subsurface sanitary facilities.  It was pointed out that some of the neighboring properties are already connected to the municipal system, as this one will be. The Hansen’s parcel across the road will also be connected to the pump station at some point in time.

 

Mr. Funtow pointed that after being empty for a period of two years, a building is considered ‘abandoned’. Mr. Hamlin said the Hansens met with the Town Planner, Dean Pierce, who instructed them on how to go through the application process. The Hansens currently live out of the country, but intend to retire in Shelburne.

 

Mr. Hamlin reiterated that the proposal meets side yard setbacks and encroachment in the front and rear yard setbacks will be no more than presently exists. The proposal will be within lot coverage allowances. It was noted per Map 25, Parcel 72 is shown as a separate parcel. Ms. Leonard said that the different town maps show the parcels in different configurations (separate and merged with others).

 

Mr. Hamlin stated a low water mark survey was done in October. Two “low water” elevations are proposed (94.5’ and 98.9’ on average). The average yearly minimum of 95.19’ is based on USGS lake data. A record low was recorded at 92.5’. The low water mark being proposed is 95’. Regarding the Lake Shore Overlay, the proposal will not be any closer to the 102’ line than existing. The site plan shows finished grade elevations. Mr. Hamlin showed the building face on the site plan and addressed a question about the location of the proposed building corners. The proposed pump station will be flood proofed. The finished house will be 10,440 c.f. which is 16 s.f. less than allowed. The single family residence will connect to the municipal system in the future. There will be no increase in traffic from the proposal.

 

Mr. Koerner mentioned Board concerns included the low water mark, lot coverage calculations, merger of the lots, and possible abandonment. Mr. Koerner asked if there are plans to expand the structure. Mr. Hamlin said there are no such plans. The parcel across the road was purchased by the Hansens to protect the viewscape of the lake.

 

Ms. Webster asked about site plans showing existing heights/levels. Ms. Leonard reported the Town Attorney is researching the question of the low water mark and will likely have a response by the next meeting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ellen McShane, neighbor, said they have been neighbors to the Hansen camp for ten years. The Hansen’s brown house across the road has been boarded up and the camp has never been used. Mr. Koerner stated if a structure has been abandoned for two years then the use is considered “expired”. Mr. Koerner asked for verification in writing of the lack of abandonment. Mr. Hamlin will follow up on this matter.

 

Mr. Boisvert, neighbor, expressed concern about sewage from the brown house and camp going into the lake. Mr. Boisvert said his property is hooked to municipal water/sewer service. Other properties along the road have non-functioning septic systems with (inadequate) leach fields. In summer, there is a sewerage smell and the material is basically draining into the lake.  Mr. Hamlin reviewed the plan for both structures to connect to a force main going to the Beaudin pump station. Mr. Boisvert said another concern is parking by the house. Mr. Hamlin showed the parking space on the site plan. Mr. Boisvert mentioned the existing mature trees between his property and the Hansen property and requested there be no cutting of trees. Mr. Hamlin confirmed no changes are proposed. Mr. Boisvert expressed concern the proposed sewer line may infringe on his property if the line is brought up the road. Mr. Hamlin explained the line will be in the town right-of-way. A separation must be maintained between the sewer and water lines. No trench excavation is planned. Direct boring will be utilized. The sewer line will be a force main with a small diameter. The applicant will work with the Public Works Department to ensure correct installation.

 

The Board will discuss the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the regular meeting. The application will be continued to the next Zoning Board meeting (May). Submit questions/comments/concerns to the Planning and Zoning Office prior to the next meeting.

Dennis Sanders and Mary (Dee Dee) O’Brien, owners, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reviewed the Staff Report, dated 04/03/06. The eastern property line is noted as the eastern edge of the front yard as determined by the Zoning Coordinator. The applicant will be proposing modifications to an existing garage near the eastern side of the property.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dennis Sanders reviewed his proposal to construct an outdoor stairway on the existing garage located in the “back” of the property. The location of the house, garage and driveway were shown on the site plan. The front yard issue began in 1998 with a proposal to move the parking area and add the garage, explained Mr. Sanders. The entrance to the house was on the south side of the structure. After doing a site visit, Mr. Youngblood wanted to preserve the grove of mature pine trees so the “front yard” was designated as the lake shore with the goal to move everything back from the lake. He stated that in 1998, the property was conforming, but under current zoning, the property is nonconforming. Being in the Lake Shore Overlay District is another complication. A copy of the Zoning Board’s decision on the 1998 application was provided for review.

 

Mr. Funtow read Section §1810.43 defining a front yard facing a right-of-way, noting the definition of a front yard makes the front yard next to the property’s right-of-way. Mr. Funtow noted the existing garage is 75’ and 50’ from the setbacks per the site plan. Mr. Sanders stated access to the garage is as shown on the plan.

 

Gwen Webster asked about the regulations in effect in 1998 with regard to front yard setbacks and building orientation. Mr. Sanders said the town’s regulations would not allow construction of a non-complying structure. The Zoning Administrator in 1998 did a site visit and the property was in compliance. Ms. Webster noted the zoning regulations re-orient the front yard setback. The side yards are north and south. The front yard is east and will need a 75’ setback. The rear yard is to the lake. Ms. O’Brien pointed out the southeast corner of the garage is in excess of 75’ from the boundary. The applicants’ concern is the house will be a non-complying structure which could impact rebuilding if something should happen. The applicants stressed they should not be penalized due to mistakes in using the zoning regulations. Mr. Koerner noted that the Zoning Administrator in 1998 indicated the lake was the front yard yet the plans show a rear yard. Mr. Sanders stated to avoid being a non-complying structure, the best situation is the front yard be on the lake side of the property. Ms. Webster commented new construction is possible with a non-complying structure, however, if a variance is needed it is not likely to be approved.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Roger Stone, neighbor, explained historically every parcel from Shelburne Farms down to the lake has a “front” yard on the west side toward the lake. Mr. Stone spoke in support of the proposal.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Board will discuss the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the regular meeting.

MOTION by Mr. Waltien, seconded by Mr. Holt, to close the public portion of the meeting and enter Deliberative Session. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

 

The Board entered Deliberative Session at 8:55 p.m.

 

                                 

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                                                          Gwen Webster

 

 

 

 

 

Boris Funtow                                                                                          Steve Waltien

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________

John Holt