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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Wagner, Pamela Burton-Macauley, David Conard, Spencer Knapp, Barbara Cory, Herb Kessel, Barb Kessel, Sue Furry Irish, L. Paul Irish, Trafton Crandall, John Wakefield, Larry Williams, Maureen O’Brien, Michael Glaveln, Jessica Comai Brumsted, John Brumsted, Peter and Rose Garritano, Jeff Beer, Oda Hubbard, Bruce Ogilvie, Patrick O’Brien, Scott Homstead, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (3/23/06)

3.      Design Review, Robert C. Macauley, Jr. & Pamela Burton-Macauley, 75 Village Vale (DR06-09)

4.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Road & 11 Falls Road (DR06-06)

5.      Preliminary Plan Review, John Wagner/Wag, LLC, 4592 Dorset St. (SUB05-08)

6.      Final Plan Amendment, Field House, LLC/Town of Shelburne, 166 Athletic Drive & 154 Turtle Lane (SUB04-06R4)

7.      Site Plan Amendment, Catamount/Harbour, LLC, 4750 Shelburne Rd. (SP06-03)

8.      Sketch Plan Review, Forest Park Realty, Portion of 7727 Spear St. (SUB06-04)

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.

 

 

Pam Burton-Macauley appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMENTS

Ms. Burton-Macauley explained the plan to install a hot tub and lattice topped cedar fence extending toward the front of the house (replacing an existing fence). The hot tub will be fully enclosed in the back yard and not visible from the street.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Williams explained the proposal to replace two existing doors on the south elevation of the Inn with windows, and at 11 Falls Road to replace the stone steps with wooden stairs and replace the door and windows on the second floor to match those on the Inn.  There will be a wrought iron railing by the stairs at 11 Falls Road.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06.  Dean Pierce asked about the lights by the door facing Route 7. Mr. Williams explained the lights are full glass. Reg Gignoux asked about the shutters on the building. Mr. Williams stated the shutters will be reused along with shutter ties.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

·        As depicted on submitted plans the westernmost door on the south elevation shall be replaced with a window of six-over-six design to match other similar windows in the building;

·        As depicted on submitted plans the center door on the south elevation shall be replace with a new nine-panel, half-glass wood door (see plans) to be painted dark green to match the shutters;

·        As depicted on submitted plans the easternmost door on the south elevation shall be replaced with a four-panel wood door (see plans) to be painted dark green to match the shutters, and the proposed adjacent side light shown on the plans is not approved and shall be eliminated;

·        The front door on the west elevation shall be replaced with a four-panel wood door to be painted dark green to match the shutters flanked with a pair of side lights (see plans);

·        All door hardware shall be as proposed in the application;

·        All other conditions not affected hereby remain in effect.

·        Existing concrete steps serving each of the two front doors on the west side of the building may be replaced and replacement steps shall be constructed of wood and feature wrought iron rails as detailed on submitted plans;

·        Second floor windows on the west and north facades may be replaced, and replacement windows shall be of a design matching multi-light windows approved for use at the adjacent building;

·        The two doors on the west side of the building may be replaced, and replacement doors shall be of nine-panel, half-glass design matching those approved for use within the center doorframe on the south elevation of the adjacent building;

·        All other conditions not affected hereby remain in effect.

 

John Wagner (owner) and Trafton Crandall (engineer) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Trafton Crandall reviewed changes to the site plan in response to comments from the town’s engineer, staff, and neighbors of the property. A revised site plan has been submitted. Lot configurations and proposed building envelopes are shown on the revised plan. The last three building envelopes have been moved toward the rear of the back three lots. The VAST trail has been relocated on the property to below the housing units and the septic system. The septic pump station has been relocated by the drainage swale. Road grading and drainage plans were reviewed. There will be no increase in flow discharging from the site than pre-construction levels. Plans for erosion control and sediment retention during construction were also reviewed.  The road is proposed to be 18’ wide with four foot shoulders so emergency vehicles can pass. The depth of the fire pond has been increased (to seven feet) in response to the Fire Chief’s comments. A hammerhead turnaround has been added to the road to accommodate emergency vehicles. There will be a dry hydrant added at the end of the road.  The waste water system for the project was reviewed.  Meetings have been held with neighbors to discuss landscaping. The landscape plan includes berms (4’ high by 10’ wide, three-in-one slope) and evergreen planting to shield houses from car headlights and noise.  Plantings on property lines will be added. Crabapple trees will be planted along Dorset Street to screen the community mound system.  The proposed tree plantings will be approximately 2” caliper to be installed after the septic, wells, and storm water drainage is done. Plantings by the houses will be done after construction.  The applicant will submit a list of the types and size of trees to be planted.  Mr. Crandall reviewed the list of submitted documents, including revised waste water calculations, fire hydrant and fire pond information, well location and capacity data (research of the area shows there appears to be adequate supply, but a pump test will be done if necessary to determine yield and assess impact on area wells; a community water system will be considered if indicated). Regarding paths, the Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee indicated no action because there is a right-of-way on Dorset Street for a path plus the VAST trail traverses the property.  Regarding municipal impacts from the project, the Director of Parks & Recreation indicated there are no significant impacts on facilities. The same response was received from the school superintendent with regard to impact on schools by the project. Copies of the letters from these organizations will be submitted to the town.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06. Reg Gignoux suggested the tree plantings be staggered to appear more natural. Mr. Pierce asked about retention of existing trees. The applicant will review this matter and preserve existing trees if possible.

 

There was mention of a fence around the fire pond for safety purposes. John Wagner noted the homeowners association will address the issue. Hilda White asked about maintenance of the fire pond by the homeowners association or if necessary by the town. Mr. Pierce noted the Planning Commission can require legal documents with the final plan mandating pond maintenance at the expense of the homeowners association.  Trafton Crandall stated a Declaration of Planned Community (homeowners association) was submitted which addresses maintenance and operation of the waste water and storm water systems.

 

Rick Peterson asked if the VAST trail relocation is a formalized agreement. Trafton Crandall explained a formal easement is not being proposed. There is an agreement with the property owner now and the homeowners association for the development will take over purview.

 

Dean Pierce observed the boundaries for Lot #5 are different on different plans. Mr. Crandall confirmed the boundaries will be moved to include the road so executing the easement is easier (i.e. the easement is not in the open space). It was noted the hammerhead turnaround is shown in the open space lot. The Planning Commission requested the turnaround not be in the open space lot if possible. Dean Pierce stated the road profile needs to show 18’ wide with the proposed shoulders which could be reduced from four foot shoulders to two foot grassed shoulders. The location of the utility easement also needs to be shown on the site plan. The applicant assured the site plan(s) will be revised to reflect current information.  Mr. Pierce noted the town’s engineer has not submitted comments on the revised plan as yet. Also, the Selectboard eliminated school impact fees. The applicant confirmed the state permits are for a cap of three bedrooms per house.

 

Kay Kraushaar commented the building envelopes for lots #5 and #6 should be positioned so the houses are shielded from each other (not linear).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Maureen O’Brien, adjacent landowner, confirmed there was a meeting with John Wagner to discuss landscaping, but the residents do not know the types and sizes of trees to be planted and where the trees will be planted. Also, the original test pits done by Summit for septic systems indicated the site is sufficient for a four-bedroom house only. The current engineer, Trafton Crandall, did an assessment based on assumptions, such as the size of the mound system to support the proposed development. Mr. Crandall interjected additional test pits were done, the engineer from the State of Vermont has been on the site, and only a handful of the test pits done by Summit were used. Ms. O’Brien questioned if there is the basic capacity for the proposed development. Mr. Crandall stated a formal application for the waste water system will be submitted to the State of Vermont for approval. The engineers with Summit did test pits. Additional test pits and perk tests were done as well. It was felt there is enough engineering information to do the calculations and design to be sent to the state for a decision.

 

Rose Garritano, neighbor to the north, asked for assurance the caliper of the trees is sufficient to provide screening. More trees would be better, stated Ms. Garritano.  There was discussion of well capacity and potential adverse impact by the proposed development. Ms. Garritano said their well is 500’ deep and yields one gallon per minute.  John Wagner assured current well capacity will not be decreased, and if it is, steps will be taken to return the capacity to preconstruction conditions. Trafton Crandall added there are state guidelines that indicate impact on surrounding wells based on the yield of newly drilled wells.

 

Pete Garritano asked about the storage of construction equipment. Mr. Crandall stated the equipment will be stored on Lot #3 during construction.

 

An individual in the audience asked about the size of the houses to be built (three bedroom or larger). Mr. Crandall stated the septic capacity is based on three bedroom houses, and there is market demand for that size house.

 

There were no further questions or comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Planning Commission wanted comments from the town’s engineer on the revised site plan and to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with the neighbors regarding landscaping.

 

 

Patty Colburn (engineer) and Gregg Beldock (owner) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Colburn explained the boundary line adjustment of .28 acre from the town’s property to Fieldhouse property. Revised plans have been submitted showing the parking areas relative to the new boundary line.  The adjustment is needed for setback purposes. There is a provision in the deed that allows when the property was conveyed to the town, Fieldhouse can buy it back.  Gregg Beldock clarified when the land transfer was done, Fieldhouse had the option if/when desired to purchase the property which was done for one dollar. It was mentioned the project has taken years and many meetings to come to completion.

 

Ms. Colburn also requested a change to the lighting plan for safety reasons. Fifteen bollard style lights need to be 40” high to be visible with snow. Cut sheets showing the 50-watt metal halide louvered lights have been submitted. The lights replace the 13-watt florescent lights in place now.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06. Dean Pierce mentioned the need to meet lighting standards (information on photometrics should be submitted). It was noted Lee Suskin, neighbor, expressed preference for the proposed louvered lights.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Wakefield explained the proposal to remove 10,000 c.y. of stone in the rear of the building at 4750 Shelburne Road for the creation of a loading area. A storm water pond will be constructed. There will be five loading docks at the rear of the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06. There was discussion of doing a site visit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Patrick O’Brien and Scott homestead (Krebs & Lansing Engineers) appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. O’Brien reviewed the proposal to subdivide approximately 96 acres in the Rural 1 district south of Irish Hill Road into 15 residential lots and open space.  Surrounding development and open lands were reviewed. Most of the land in the proposed subdivision is pasture, woods, and slopes. Wetlands on the property will not be impacted.  A private access road which is less intrusive than a public road will be built to town specifications and will follow the contours of the land (a public road would require a 75’ swath of trees to be removed to accommodate the road, sewer/water lines, and utilities). The size of the lots will range from approximately one acre to six acres, similar to surrounding lots. The larger lot(s) will be “farmette” lots (i.e. allow for agricultural activity). Further subdivision of any of the lots is not proposed.  The single family residential development and proposed density is in conformance with the regulations, but for dimensional requirements to be met, a PRD format is needed.  There was further discussion of the PRD option and separating lots #13 and #14 from the PRD.  Access from Spear Street versus Irish Hill Road was also discussed. Mr. O’Brien said he would rather not bisect Lot #13 with the access road. Also, there are some wet areas and slope issues on the lot which would be impacted by the road. The access road if located on Lot #13 will be visible and possibly impact the existing farm operation in the area.

 

Mr. O’Brien stated building envelopes will be proposed following input from the neighbors on potential locations.  Agricultural operations will be addressed in the deed language. Open space and agricultural lands will be preserved. Plantings and fencing will be done for screening.  A municipal impact analysis will be done.  Mr. O’Brien reviewed various town maps (Natural Resources, Wildlife, Archeology, Wetlands, Watershed, Endangered Species, Prime Ag Soils, Open Space, Structures, Views) and the potential impact of the proposal.  No recreation paths are proposed. Chairman Peterson requested the applicant consider granting an easement 20’ in from the right-of-way on Spear Street and Irish Hill Road or a path connection from Spear Street to Irish Hill Road. Perhaps a small parking area on Irish Hill Road could be created for people to unload their bikes.

 

Regarding traffic impacts, Mr. O’Brien stated only 14 new residences are proposed. The 15^th house in the subdivision is an existing residence. It is calculated on average 134 weekday trips will be generated by the development. This will result in nine morning peak hour trips (nine cars entering traffic between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.) and 16 afternoon peak hour trips (16 cars entering traffic between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.). There are 9,800 cars going through the Irish Hill/Spear Street intersection on an average weekday. The impact on traffic by the proposed development is less than 1%. There are 3,400 cars per day (average daily trips) on Irish hill Road, and the proposal will have an impact of 3.9% on traffic. Mr. O’Brien felt a traffic study is not necessary.

 

Each lot in the subdivision will have a well and septic system. In some cases, there will be shared systems. There is amble sewer capacity on the site though designs have not yet been done.  There will be a common recreation area for the homeowners (playground, tennis courts, and such) in the center of the development (Lot A). Mr. O’Brien had no objection to doing an assessment of potential impact by the development on public services.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/13/06.  Dean Pierce observed there may be an impact on significant views by the farm buildings.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Spencer Knapp, adjacent property owner for the past 23 years, spoke of the unimpeded views to the east and open meadow land to the west. There is a 100 year old Maple tree stand surrounding Mr. Knapp’s property. The area is a densely used wildlife area (deer, turkey, coyotes). The proposed development changes a pastoral setting with woodlands to intense development. Mr. Knapp asked the Planning Commission to look at impacts on neighboring properties. Also, the access road follows the Knapp property line then circles back around so the Knapps will be aware of every trip into and out of the site.  Mr. Knapp suggested the existing farm road be used because it will be less intrusive on those already in the neighborhood.  In addition, the circle of the access road could be changed to a “U” to lessen impact. Mr. Knapp reiterated his request for the Planning Commission to seriously consider the impact and intensity of the development on a beautiful meadow, the great easterly views, and the highest point in Shelburne. The view corridor could be added to the common space and the housing lots could be reconfigured as an option, suggested Mr. Knapp.

 

Herb Kessel, neighbor, expressed concern for the density of houses in a small area and potential impact on wells. There is also concern about the location of the access road as well as adding more traffic to Irish Hill Road which is already a very dangerous road with lots of speeding traffic. Mr. Kessel mentioned the issue of drainage since the area is wet.

 

Barb Kessel spoke of the site being the highest point in Shelburne with spectacular views. The proposed houses will be visible from the west.

 

Ida Hubbard, neighbor, stressed the mountain views are spectacular looking from the village up and from the site down. The views should be preserved as much as possible.

 

Sue Furry-Irish pointed out on the east side of their property (Irish lot), there are woods with walking paths. An access road across Lot #13 would impact this. There is also much wildlife in the area and the area is very wet.

 

Paul Irish spoke in support of a development that makes use of the property while maintaining what Shelburne feels is important.

 

There were no further comments. The Planning Commission discussed doing a site visit.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dean Pierce reported VLCT is looking for volunteer towns to do a test run of their training materials for planning commissions and zoning boards.

 

Mediation of zoning disputes will be available. Information will be posted on the town’s website.

 

Dean Pierce reported an extension was granted to the landowner to rectify the tree clearing issue on Pond Road.

 

The Selectboard set the date of May 9, 2006 for the hearing on the Town Plan.

 

The Environmental Court decision with regard to the Rice Woods application is being appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bob Van Kleick, JT Burke, Trafton Crandall, John Wakefield, Matt Wamsganz, Dave Marshall, David White, Jeff Jackson, Scott Jaunich, Wade Weathers, Darien McElwain, Michael Graveln, Rose Garritano, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (4/13/06)

3.      Design Review Amendment, Michael Liker, 108 Athletic Drive (DR04-17)

4.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC & Vergennes Restaurant Group d/b/a The Bearded Frog, 5247 Shelburne Road (DR06-07)

5.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC & Vergennes Restaurant Group d/b/a The Bearded Frog, 5247 Shelburne Road (DR06-12)

6.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (DR06-11)

7.      Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, John Wagner/WAG, LLC, 4592 Dorset St. (SUB05-08)

8.      Preliminary Plan Review Continuance, Willard T. Jackson, et al, 4533 & 4539 Harbor Road (SUB05-05)

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

 

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06. Dean Pierce explained the proposal to use a cement-based shingle product which will look similar to painted cedar shingles.  Individual shingles will be applied. The Design Review Committee approved the shingles.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Wakefield described the proposed awning over the deck area for the restaurant. The ruby red color dual retractable awning will be nine feet high, 11’6” wide with a seven foot clearance. The HP&DRC approved the awning as proposed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06. There was brief discussion of the color of the awning (ruby red) and the color of the sign (burgundy).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Wakefield explained the proposed sign on the south side of the building. The sign will be 16’ in length. The area is 14 s.f. The main lettering will be 10” tall and state “The Bearded Frog”. The lettering will be burgundy in color.  There will be smaller black letters on the sign saying “Bar and Grill”. The background of the sign will be white.  There will be four lights illuminating the sign, building, and sofit.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06. Tucker Holland questioned the height of the sign. Dean Pierce explained the sign is actually a series of painted wooden letters not affixed to a single background. Peter Gibbs asked if the other two signs are from a previous application. Dean Pierce explained the plan was developed as part of a master plan for signs, but the application is only for the one proposed sign.

 

Dean Pierce asked about the size of the smaller lettering. The applicant estimated the size to be no larger than six inches.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Wakefield explained the proposal to paint the kitchen ventilation unit flat grey to better disguise the unit rather than use screening.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06. Dean Pierce mentioned the minor change to the roof slope and the kitchen ventilation unit are already in place so the approval is retroactive.  The HP&DRC approved the application as presented. Mr. Pierce reported there was discussion by the Design Review Committee as to whether the ventilation unit needed screening and if the screening would bring more attention to the area than desired. Painting with a flat grey color could be a first step, and when the motel property is redeveloped and tenants see the unit, feedback can be gathered. The applicant can then return for further design review if necessary.  It was noted if the unit is not painted, the color is aluminum silver.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the chimney on the corner. John Wakefield stated there is an overhang for the doorway. The ventilation and chimney are gone.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Trafton Crandall and John Wagner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Crandall reported a revised set of plan has been submitted and the comments from the town’s engineer have been addressed as well as comments from the neighbors regarding landscaping.  The following documentation has also been submitted: 1) report on impact on schools submitted to the school district (there will be no significant impact from the proposed subdivision), 2) Act 250 questionnaire relative to school impact, 3) report on impact to park/recreation services in town (there will be no significant impact from the proposed subdivision), 4) schedule of plantings, tree species, tree sizes, and costs, 5) buoyancy calculation for the fire pond (there is negative buoyancy), 6) report on additional test pits to show soil conditions down hill from the mound system (there was no change in calculation needed for the mound design), 7) test pit log book. Regarding the landscape plan, a third berm has been added for additional screening by the Garritano residence. The spacing of the plantings has been increased (staggered). Plantings have been added along the border for additional screening for both the Garritano and O’Brien properties.  Per the request from the Maille family, trees planned for the edge of the field will be moved to the edge of Lot #8 to provide a natural tree line on the boundary. There is language in the Declaration that indicates no tree cutting on the northerly, westerly, or southerly boundaries except for removal of dead and blown down trees. There is also language relative to the management of the open space.  The trees to be planted will be mostly native species, though Austrian Pine will be planted on the berms because they are drought resistant, fast growing, and provide good screening.  Other tree species to be planted include Blue Spruce, Pin Oak, White Pine, and Crabapple.  It was noted a letter of credit guaranteeing plantings for two years must be submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Crandall reviewed the technical issues noted by town staff.  The building envelopes are highlighted on the plan and have been moved back to position the houses as discussed. The well isolation zones and test pits are shown on the site plan. On the road plan, typographical errors have been corrected, the elevations are correct, and the culvert shown on Dorset Street has been extended by an additional 20’. The width of the pavement on the access road is 18’. The lot configurations are consistent on the site plans. The survey plat has been revised to show changes to the lot lines for lots 4 & 5. The routing of the waste water lines is optimized. Easements are shown on the site plan for the waste water utilities, the road right-of-way, waste water easement to the mound system on the open space lot, and the fire pond with outlet.  The erosion prevention plan, storm water controls,  waste water systems (piping, tanks, water lines to each house, setbacks, separation distances), main pump station relocation, and the waste water system and easement for replacement area (on Lot #1) for Lot #8 (existing house) as well as the thrust block details are shown on the appropriate site plans.  The attachments include assurance from the property owner, John Wagner, to the Garritanos that their well yield will not decrease from pre-construction conditions (i.e. steps will be taken to restore the Garritano well to pre-construction condition if necessary).  Mr. Crandall described the test for water yield from a well (minimum state standard is .6 gallons per minute). If the minimum cannot be met, the well must be re-drilled or hydrofracturing can be done. If an adequate yield does not occur (there could be impact on surrounding wells), then a pump test will be done. A community system will be investigated if necessary.

 

Peter Gibbs suggested extending the culvert for Lot #3 to the west to provide access to the easement to the pump station. The applicant agreed with the suggestion.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a supplemental staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06.  Dean Pierce noted the well shield for Lot #3 extends onto the Garritano property. The leach field replacement area on the Garritano lot needs to be verified.  It was clarified the 100’ isolation zone on the Garritano property for the lots on the Wagner property cannot be used by the Garritanos for a replacement leach field or well. The same situation exists with the isolation areas on the Garritano property potentially impacting the Wagner property.  Following further discussion, the applicant agreed to try to relocate the well and isolation area that is impacting the Garritano property.

 

Dean Pierce mentioned the 18’ wide paved access road, noting the Planning Commission typically supports a narrower road with turf covered shoulders built to support emergency vehicles. The plans do not seem to indicate this. Mr. Pierce also suggested the applicant begin the process of naming the road.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Crandall explained hydrofracturing (water at high pressure is injected into the well hole at a certain point to fracture rock and open fissures/water veins). Hydrofracturing can impact a well within 100’ radius. The well owner holds the burden of proof of impact on his well. Rose Garritano, adjacent property owner, questioned how to prove which lot is responsible for impact on neighboring wells.  Trafton Crandall stated pump tests can make the connection.

 

Marge Sharp, Shelburne News, asked why there are three berms. Trafton Crandall explained the berms which are broken up but nearly continuous are 100’ long, 60’ long, and 100’ long respectively.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

David White, Jeff Jackson, Matt Wamsganz, Dave Marshall, Wade Weathers, and Darien McElwain appeared on behalf of the application. Tucker Holland recused himself.

 

Chairman Peterson suggested each Planning Commissioner mention their items of concern or needing further discussion. Mr. Peterson stated he would like further discussion of legal public access to the Jackson property and potentially altering the plan to allow public access to the property. Mr. Peterson also had concern about the complexity of legal documents relative to protecting the aesthetics and natural resources on the property, and suggested simplifying this matter.

 

Kay Kraushaar commented the original approval was a “stretch” to be in conformance with the Town Plan, and the response by the applicant to some of the approval conditions has made the proposal move farther from conformance with the Town Plan.  Items of concern are the conservation area, the size of the building envelopes, the management plan (implementation and enforcement), re-subdivision of the lot, lack of cluster pattern of development, and attention to significant views from land and water.

 

Hilda White stated the management plan is fine until the views for the homeowners are addressed. The management plan allows for half the lake frontage to be opened up for views (increasing from 350’ to over 600’). There is concern about cutting trees on the lake shore and erosion control. There is also concern the management plan can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners association, and that is why the Planning Commission wanted third party involvement in the management of the conservation land.

 

Peter Gibbs echoed the comment on public access to the property. Mr. Gibbs asked about the extent of lake access on each lot, noting three lots have a natural location for access, but three do not (cliff). Also, it is not clear who holds the conservation easement.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

David White reviewed advances in the proposal to date. Appendix 4 (lot-by-lot) to the Natural Communities Management Plan is finished and has been submitted. Letters from the land trusts have been received explaining why they are not interested in serving as a third party to the property. Documentation on the easements has been submitted. There will not be a gazebo in the Shore Zone as previously proposed. Regarding seawalls and retaining walls, erosion control will be in place, but concrete retaining walls will not be used. Materials that integrate aesthetically and appear natural will be used.  The revised plans address technical issues raised by the Fire Chief, the town’s consulting engineer(s), and the Water Department. Letters of acceptance have been received from all departments except Public Works. Mr. White made a correction to the 2/9/06 Planning Commission minutes in reference to public access to the beach from Lot #4 to the lake (Page 3, last sentence of the minutes), noting the intention is not that public access is provided, but that there is nothing in the conservation easement that prohibits access should the homeowners association want to pursue the matter.  Regarding the archeological study of the area, in one area test pits (second step of the study) were done, but it is not expected any significant archeological resources will be found. The second step of the study was done to confirm this expectation.  Chairman Peterson suggested the archeological studies on the property be done sooner than later.

 

There was further discussion of the issue of public access. David White stated there is no deeded access to the town or public beyond the point where the road approaches the southern boundary of Shelburne Shipyard property. The easement held by the Jacksons to Harbor Road can not be expanded. A private citizen cannot convey public access from an easement.  Rick Peterson urged further research of the records for ancient roads on the property, mentioning survey work by Fred Koerner might be informative.  Attorney Scott Jaunich explained the Jacksons took the easement to establish there is legal, lawful access to their property. The issue of ancient roads involves the shipyard, not the Jackson property. Public access as a condition of approval is of concern, continued Mr. Jaunich, since the Jacksons do not have the right to convey public access from their easement. Jeff Jackson suggested one solution to the public access issue is to have the town buy the property. Mr. Jackson stated his family has owned the property for the past 40 years and the town has not ever inquired about purchase. The property has been for sale for the past four years. Taxes on the property are currently $150,000 per year ($3,000 per week). It does not make (fiscal) sense for the family to continue to own the property.  The Nature Conservancy and Land Trust have been contacted about the property, but there is no interest. Even if access is gained to the property, the land will still be privately owned. Also, the impact of a walking path on the perimeter of the property in front of the proposed homes is a concern. Jeff Jackson stressed his family has tried to develop a plan with the least impact possible. If the town wants control of the property, then the town should purchase the land.  Developing six lots versus the allowed 18 lots is minimal impact, continued Mr. Jackson, stressing his family cares about the land and is trying to do the right thing. Developing the land into a park would ruin it (dogs, trash, impact on wild life are a few of the issues). There will be a tax gain to the town with the proposed development.

 

David White stated with regard to whom can hold the conservation easement, if there is no tax benefit, there is no restriction on who holds the easement. Scott Jaunich explained if it is a natural easement, it can be held by the homeowner.  Rick Peterson disagreed with the interpretation of Title10, Chapter 34 having to do with taxes. Mr. Peterson argued the statute addresses development rights and conservation easements held in public trust. There is overlap with IRS regulations, but the statute is not a tax statute. Rick Peterson felt a particular type of organization should hold the easement (municipality, 503C organization).

 

Regarding enforceability of the environmental stewardship and the homeowners association by majority vote amending the bylaws, David White clarified the homeowners association by majority vote cannot amend the conservation easement document which is superior to the covenants on the land.  Each individual homeowner would have to want to change the bylaws and make a change that is not anticipated. The people who will purchase the parcels value conservation of the land. There would have to be 100% agreement on a change by each individual landowner.  As many layers of protection as possible were put in the document, but human behavior cannot be guaranteed, conceded Mr. White. The Nature Conservancy and the Lake Champlain Land Trust both said the property does not fit their mission. These organizations are looking for large tracts of pristine land not close to development. Also, the organizations do not want to be perceived as supporting development.

 

Darien McElwain, ecology consultant, reported the land is beautiful but not pristine. The land has been manipulated. Species are not natural communities. The species came in after the land was worked. The Nature Conservancy is looking for parcels that support more animal species. The configuration of the development does not make a difference (i.e. if the open space were located elsewhere on the property or the houses clustered). Jeff Jackson added the Nature Conservancy evaluated the land and said it was not at the top of the list.  Lake Champlain Land Trust was not interested in holding an easement on the shoreline because they do not want any involvement with a development project. Wade Weathers said he was on the Lake Champlain Land Trust when the easement around Shelburne Farm was accepted. With Shelburne Point, the Land Trust was specifically looking for public access properties and that is why the proposal does not interest them as well.  There were similar discussions with Vermont Land Trust. David White noted as a result of the conversations, numerous covenants and restrictions have been drafted to protect the property. Jeff Jackson said he does not want to see the majestic Oak trees cut down because they are not a native species. There may be more that can be done to protect these trees. Clear cutting is not allowed and the view corridor is well defined.  Rick Peterson suggested if the homeowners association holds the easement, there could be an executory interest on the part of the town as a qualified holder to step in if the homeowners association fails to conserve the land.

 

Ms. McElwain explained the process followed to develop a management plan. Species are identified and their locations mapped. Strategies to minimize the impact of development are drafted. Rare communities are protected/preserved. Long term strategies to improve the communities and reestablish original (native) communities are developed.  Ms. McElwain reviewed the comments in the letter from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, dated 4/18/06, noting some of the thoughts from the committee relative to the 90 acre parcel are more applicable to a larger area. The fields are beautiful, but do not constitute a natural community (the fields were planted).  The bird breeding habitat should be maintained. Milk Weed is a native plant, not invasive.  The older community of plant species should be promoted without providing access for invasive species. On the west bank, the trees can be safely thinned by 15’ (increasing the view corridor by 15’) due to the root system of the larger trees. Planting low native shrubs will increase the root system in the area as well. There is bedrock on the west side of the property. This is not similar to erosion areas by streams (stream erosion). Rick Peterson asked about having enforcement of the management plan incorporated as part of the conservation easement. Ms. McElwain said her experience is homeowners are invested in what is on their property which is different from the position of large corporations owning land with regard to conservation of the property.  Hilda White suggested the homeowners be required to hire a third party steward to work with them in the management of their property, possibly creating a situation where the town controls a fund to manage the conservation easement which includes hiring a steward to work with the homeowners to properly manage their land.

 

Ms. McElwain discussed the view corridor and beach access. There is not necessarily a contiguous habitat corridor on the property, and when the view corridor is opened up, the residents (humans) will use paths. Native plant species and shrubs could be planted to increase the native tree diversity. This will help prevent erosion and enhance wild life.  The areas that are pristine (not previously managed) and have rare plants are by the cliffs so walkways and docks should not be built in this area. Dave Marshall, CEA, mentioned to build a functional dock depends on the how the shoreline falls off and the depth of the water. It is site specific. In the present case, 20’ seems restrictive, 50’ seems more realistic.

 

Rick Peterson asked if the numbers (100’ forested conservation buffer, for example) in the General Shoreline Guidelines and Appendix 4 (lot-by-lot) are consistent.  Ms. McElwain stated each lot is different and the shoreline is different. An overall strategy is presented and individual differences within each lot addressed. The management of each lot is approached individually.  Chairman Peterson stated the conservation easement relative to the shoreline high/low water mark should be consistent (100’ from the high water mark, 102 contour).

 

Hilda White commented the view corridor must be considered from land to lake as well as lake to land. It seems excessive to allow the view corridor to exceed 50% of the water front (but no greater than 200’ wide) with up to three view corridors. David White replied the undergrowth, canopy, and major vertical trees will be maintained, but there will be a horizontal band for a view. No clear cutting will be allowed. There will be healthy plant growth everywhere. The view corridor will be similar to the keyhole effect (can see out to the lake, but it is hard to see in from the lake).

 

There was discussion of the locust trees on the property (not native species, but existing on the property for the last 150 years). The trees were planted by early settlers to the area and have been reproducing only in the immediate area (not invading the area). Hilda White spoke in support of keeping the locust trees.

 

Rick Peterson mentioned the buildable area on Lot #4 (25,000 s.f. footprint) and the natural and sensitive features on the lot, suggesting the footprint be decreased in size. Darien McElwain stated the footprint of the building will not impact the rare plants on the lot. All sensitive areas will be protected during construction. Mr. Peterson pointed out everything west of the buildable area is in the conservation zone so it is protected. Chairman Peterson noted the statement about no structures allowed in the lake shore zone is only stated for Jeff Jackson’s lot, not the others.  Ms. McElwain agreed this can be clarified, but the 100’ buffer has been mentioned repeatedly.

 

David White mentioned it is desired that there be no grazing animals on the property, and removal of invasive species will be determined on a site specific basis.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/27/06. Dean Pierce asked when the report from Daren McElwain will become permanent (currently it is marked “draft”). Ms. McElwain stated the draft will become permanent when clarifications and details are finalized.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, asked that the rare plants be flagged and protected during construction, and that this should be specified in writing. Ms. McElwain agreed the language can be “beefed up” to protect the plants during construction.

 

There were no further questions or comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission will handle re-approval of the Wake Robin application (mylar was not filed on time) prior to the work session on 5/4/06.

 

10.       ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.