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

ADMNISTRATOR:              Paul Bohne, Town Manager.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Michael Russell, David Pierson, Jane Melrose, Robert Mason, William Ford, Anita Royer, Doug Schneible, Dawna Hammers, Grant Bush, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

 

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Introductions were made. Rules of procedure and establishing “Interested Party” status were explained. Chairman Koerner noted the Board may elect to deliberate applications in Deliberative Session at the end of the public portion of the meeting.

 

Doug Schneible and Anita Royer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reported that a site visit to 837 Bay Road was conducted just before this meeting. The primary issue with the site is the setback from the 102’ elevation which has created a hardship. A letter, dated 09/27/2006, was received from Rebecca Jewett and Donald Rendall, neighbors to the property.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Royer stated discussions with the neighbor have resolved most of the issues. The house site will be moved away from the 102’ elevation and plantings are proposed for visual screening. As proposed, the plan should not obstruct the neighbor’s view of the lake. Mr. Funtow requested the site plan and floor plan of the proposed house show the dimensional footprint and 102’ elevation distances. There was discussion of screening the back area with trees. Also, clarification is needed of the volume of the proposed house (46,000 cubic feet). Ms. Royer stated the house is proposed at 47,000 cubic feet or 3,200 square feet. The proposed footprint is 68’x 24’. There was question whether the hardship is self created.

 

Mr. Koerner reviewed concerns expressed in the letter from a neighbor, including having a parking lot, grading for wheel chair access, the 35’ height of the proposed single-family home, saving the willow tree by the proposed house, and properly delineating wetlands. Mr. Bohne noted the wetlands issue is a state issue, not a town issue. It was noted the house site was moved away from a very large rock in the middle of the lot.  Mr. Schneible explained the house must be built above the water table and 102’ elevation. The slab foundation will be at the 106’elevation. The living level is located on the next floor level and bedrooms are on the third floor. Ms. Royer’s father will live with the family and requires wheelchair accessibility. Mr. Schneible said that an elevator is not financially feasible. Mr. Waltien stated the Zoning Board must consider “self imposed” hardships. There is question of whether the back entrance is creating the need for a driveway. Mr. Schneible stated the land is naturally elevated in the back and there is no off street parking in the front. He said that it makes no sense to put a handicap access in the front or on the east side.

 

Mr. Funtow recalled a variance was granted originally because the house could not be located in the area and be in compliance, however, the Staff Report dated 9/25/06 indicates the house site is in compliance (Page 6). Ms. Webster observed a variance should not have been granted if the house could have been built 100’ from the 102’ elevation. Ms. Royer pointed out that the Zoning Board granted a variance last July to keep house away from the back corner. Negotiations were on-going with neighbors. Mr. Funtow sated the neighbor’s viewscape is not a concern per the bylaws.

 

Mr. Koerner noted that the distance from the 102’ elevation as well as the building footprint should be shown properly on the site plan.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Zoning Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the public portion of the meeting. Decisions and/or Findings of Fact will be on file in the Planning Office.

 

Mr. Koerner explained that the application, V/A06-29, is being reviewed at the Planning Commission level. The request by Patrick Grangien will be continued.

 

Dawna Hammers appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the application, dated 09/11/06.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Hammers presented information per the Zoning Board request. Photographs of the existing deck were submitted for review. A letter from Matthew Taylor, neighbor, was submitted. Ms. Hammers calculated from the corner point of the deck to the property line is 8’7” which is not in compliance with setbacks. The former property owner expanded the deck without a proper permit. There are other more serious issues that require immediate attention, said Ms. Hammers, including water runoff from the street undermining the front porch, bowing the concrete block foundation and creating a sink hole. The house is at a lower grade to the street and water runs into the front yard.

 

Mr. Koerner mentioned the deck being expanded by the previous owner, Joe Fernandez, without a permit, and the tax assessor’s records showing the deck being built after the current zoning was adopted. Mr. Funtow observed the new deck is no more non-complying than the old deck (the deck runs along the side of the house versus outward). The Board could conclude a variance is not necessary and the deck is legal. Ms. Hammers stated the lack of a permit for the deck was discovered by her attorney two days before closing on the property.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Zoning Board will deliberate the application in Deliberative Session at the end of the public portion of the meeting. Decisions and/or Findings of Fact will be on file in the Planning Office.

 

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

David Pierson, Jane Melrose, and Michael Russell appeared on behalf of the appeal.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written Staff Report on the appeal, dated 10/02/2006. Mr. Bohne stated the Shelburne Zoning Coordinator questioned if traffic to the site could be an issue.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Pierson stated the proposed office use will have a low impact on the neighborhood. Photographs of the roadway, landscaping, and existing house were submitted for review. There is a small sign on the door, but no sign posted on the street. No complaints about the office have been received to date (opened in Year 2000). The request is simply to add Ms. Melrose (spouse) to the existing home occupation permit. The neighbors have expressed support for the application. Residents of the Staige Davis development were surveyed and had no issues/concerns. Ms. Melrose stated she has a license to practice acupuncture. The service will be offered to Mr. Pierson’s chiropractic patients. The goal is to work three days a week with a total of 10-15 patients, and spend the remainder of time with her teenage children.

 

Attorney Russell pointed out state statute covers the class of uses for home occupations. There is language saying as long as there is no adverse affects, then the board should approve the use. The Zoning Board has elastic leeway to view adverse affects. Traffic that has no adverse affect is one way to look at the issue. The home/office is located on Shelburne Point and there is a fair amount of traffic generated by people driving to the shipyard. The proposed use will not add significantly to the traffic.

 

Mr. Pierson said the business will not expand, adding at some future time he would like to downsize to a smaller house and teach versus practice.

 

Mr. Koerner asked for clarification of the number of clients currently served. Mr. Pierson replied a maximum of 25 clients per day. The intent is to work together for a year then possibly look for space outside the home. Mr. Pierson stated the concept is a home office, seeing up to 15 clients per day with his partner (Jane Melrose) working three days per week. There is one staff person to answer the phone.

 

Ms. Webster suggested considering the practices as two separate home-based businesses. Mr. Funtow noted traffic “in the neighborhood” includes Harbor Road traffic as an overall neighborhood. Mr. Funtow questioned if a doctor’s office is included as a customary (home) occupation.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT
Grant Bush, neighbor, spoke in support of the request. He stated that he has met with the applicants and that they have an agreement on the road.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Robert Mason, CSSU Interim Superintendent, Grant Bush, and William Ford appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Zoning Board received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/2/06. Public and private schools are a conditional use in the Residential 1 District.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Mason explained the plan to install two five-year old modular units purchased from CVU. The units are 800 square feet larger than the burned mobile classrooms. Separation distances between the units are written in the school building code. Mr. Mason explained the differences between the double-wide temporary mobile units that were destroyed and the replacement modular units. The replacement units will not be on sono-tubes, but on a gravel and concrete base. No trees will be cut down to accommodate the two units.

 

Ms. Webster asked when the two double-wide class rooms were installed. Mr. Bush replied six years ago. Mr. Mason noted that enrollment is decreasing, but the temporary classrooms are still needed. If the rooms are not needed for program services then the school will utilize the units for storage space.

 

Mr. Waltien observed there is an impact on the community to have the modular units at the school, and asked if assurance could be given that the units will be removed within five years. Grant Bush said the State is exploring a pre-preschool program for three and four year old children. This could be a mandatory program. The extra space would be necessary if this occurs. Mr. Mason suggested the Board stipulate that an update on the situation be given in five years. CSSU would prefer not to be obligated to an outcome. Mr. Waltien expressed concern about the temporary units becoming storage space. Mr. Bush explained the school is short on storage space. Space in the core of the building is currently being used for storage of boxes, supplies, and such. The core space could be used more efficiently than for storage. The units cannot be located on the other side of the school (out of sight of Harbor Road) due to the location of playing fields, neighborhoods, and utilities. The hookups to the units already exist.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mr. Koerner noted that the applicant will need a building permit.

 

Mr. Koerner noted the application is incomplete. The Zoning Board will take no action at this time.

 

 

The public portion of the meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 8:15 p.m.