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

STAFF PRESENT:                None.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ann Johnston, Fred Tiballi, Pat and Frank Califano, Dave Marshall, Doug J. White, Marty Sieukiewycz, Mary Abele, Louise Ransom, Ray Jewett, Greg Walsh, Patrick Grangien, Suzanna Roberts, Martha McKay, RJ McKay, Margaret Ottinger, David Webster, Chris Davis, Larry Williams, Steve Vock, Nick Cowles, Dick Reid, Paul Bohne, Bernie Gagnon, Gail Albert, Ken Albert, Jeremy Matosky, Pat Lee, John Scotnicki.

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (4/27/06)

3.      Design Review, Ann Johnston & Charlotte Rancourt, 245 Marsett Rd. (DR06-14)

4.      Design Review, Patrick & Christine Grangien, 195 Falls Road (DR06-15)

5.      Design Review, Philip&Madeline Piasecki (Jocardo’s), 935 Falls Rd. (DR06-08)

6.      Final Plan and Site Plan Review, Meach Cove Real Estate Trust, LLC/All Soul Interfaith Gathering, 291 Bostwick Farm Road (SUB06-03)

7.      Final Plan Amendment, Patrick Lee/John&Lori Scotnicki/Jeremy&Catherine Matosky, 145, 150& 68 Summerfield Road/Boutin Subdivision (SUB98-10R3)

8.      Site Plan Amendment, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (SUB05-09R1)

9.      Sketch Plan Review, Nicholas Cowles, 216 Orchard Road (SUB06-05)

10.  Final Plan Amendment, Frederick P. Tiballi, et al, 75 Harbor Rd. (SUB99-02R3)

11.  Site Plan Amendment, Town of Shelburne, et al, 154 Turtle Lane (SP06-05)

12.  Sketch Plan Review, Town of Shelburne, et al, 81&154 Turtle Lane (SUB06-06)

13.  Other Business, Correspondence

14.  Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

 

 

Ann Johnston and Charlotte Rancourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant briefly explained the proposal to fence the backyard for their dogs. Chairman Peterson advised approval from the Design Review Committee is needed before the Planning Commission can take action on the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The applicant will pursue approval from the Design Review Committee before returning to the Planning Commission.

 

Patrick Grangien appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant showed pictures of the sign approved by the Design Review Committee. There was discussion of the lighting on the free-standing sign. Chairman Peterson pointed out lighting from below in an upward direction has not been encouraged in the village.  Mr. Grangien stated the sign is small (3’x 2’) and with lights on top of the sign focused downward two arms and more light will be needed. In addition, the lights would be too close to the sign and could cause damage. The lighting as proposed (from the ground upward) could be directed toward the building. A 22-watt bulb will be used. The sign company recommended the sign be illuminated from the ground upward, stated Mr. Grangien. Reg Gignoux  pointed out lights on top of the sign will be close enough to eliminate overflow. The issue with upward lighting is glare. Also, in winter time, ground lights are covered by snow. The town’s new regulations on lighting address glare. The proposed sign can be illuminated from the top, opined Mr. Gignoux.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Tabled.

 

Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Marshall reviewed the site plan showing the proposed boundary adjustment and expansion of the place of worship. The site is well screened by trees and hills. The existing yellow house which is visible from the beach property will be repainted in earth tones to better blend into the background.  All existing structures will be reutilized. The circular addition on the existing house will fit with the land form. The existing garage is too close to the proposed addition and will likely be relocated. Mechanicals and program space will be in the garage. The two parking areas will be moved closer together to provide more open area. The storm water plan and lighting plan are complete.  There is a current home occupation in place as a place of worship on the property. The property owner does not want to over-develop the site so it is suggested there be phased implementation of the parking to accommodate future growth. The need for more parking will be demonstrated to the town’s zoning administrator when the spaces are needed, suggested Mr. Marshall.  There is a water main/distribution line under general easement across the property. There is municipal water service to the property. An existing agricultural well will not be used.  Response to the technical issues identified by town staff has been submitted. Regarding recreation paths on the property, the property owner agrees to continue discussions and report to the Planning Commission with a plan. This information has been submitted to the Planning Office (note from Chris Davis and John Abele was circulated). Chairman Peterson urged discussions to continue to work out solutions to maintain access to the land.

 

Rick Peterson asked about traffic at the Bostwick/Route 7 intersection. Dave Marshall reported the impact on the intersection was studied. There will be more impact on weekends during hours when there is more traffic than on week days, however, the level of service “B” for the intersection will not change when there are services on the site.  The intersection is not a high accident location and additional traffic will not adversely affect the location.  Reg Gignoux observed there may be an impact on traffic if services are held on a week day or during peak traffic hours.

 

Rick Peterson commented the parking looks considerable (twice what the regulations consider for the minimum necessary). Dave Marshall provided information on phasing the parking. The first phase of parking is shown on Sheet “C-4” (69 spaces). Spaces marked with an “F” indicate future counts (23 spaces). The turning area and handicap parking spaces will be paved (they are closer to the building) while the remaining parking area will be gravel.  Lighting that supports the future parking need is shown on the site plan, but will not be implemented until the parking is built. The electrical ground work will be done, but the lights will not be installed. The small lane north of the circular addition will have a gravel bed to handle overflow parking if necessary. The parking is being planned for now to be prepared if and when it is needed so people are not parking in inappropriate places, explained Mr. Marshall.  Need for the second phase of parking will be documented and shown to the zoning administrator for approval. Chairman Peterson suggested phase one of the parking be approved and the applicant return to the Planning Commission for approval of phase two parking (spaces marked “F1-F23” on the site plan).

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the storm water plan is set for full build out. Mr. Marshall confirmed the plan addresses 100% capacity of the facility, but there are controls (checks/balances) in place.

 

Kay Kraushaar acknowledged the color of the house being changed to earth tones as a way to help blend the structure into the background, but questioned if clearing for the addition will create an open space/swath in the backdrop behind the building.  Dave Marshall pointed out a large percentage of the trees will be retained.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the lighting in the parking lot. Dave Marshall stated the pole lights are 15’ high (the regulations allow 16’) and will be fully compliant with the town’s lighting regulations. Cut sheets of the lights were shown and the footcandles determined (.1 footcandle outside the area and 1 footcandle under the light). The lights will be on a timer to shut off automatically at 11 p.m. There is a timed override.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jeremy Matosky, Patrick Lee, and John Scotnicki appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Matosky explained the four lot subdivision with building envelopes approved in 1999 was amended after wetlands were found. The site has now been fully mapped. The lots have buildings on them. The application is to allow for accessory structures (outbuildings for lawn equipment, boats, and such). The building envelopes for the Lee lot, Scotnicki lot, and Matosky lot need to be amended to allow for outbuildings. The changes fit within the wetlands constraints.  The detached building envelope on Lot #2 is for an accessory building. Enlarging the building envelope on Lot #1 will accommodate a garage and shed (not yet built). The plans for an outbuilding on Lot #3 are not yet drawn. There are some Prime Agricultural soils on the site, but how much is not known. The soils are predominantly Vergennes Clay.  The proposed site locations for the building envelopes (including the outbuildings) minimize impact on views.

 

Rick Peterson confirmed a right-of-way for a recreation path has been given to the town.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.  Kay Kraushaar expressed concern about the detached structure on Lot #2. It was noted the existing and planned buildings are well screened.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Larry Williams and Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Williams announced there is a verbal agreement with Marv Thomas on sharing the finger-shaped piece of land by the Inn. The site plan and parking layout has been revised accordingly. Since the verbal agreement, however, Marv Thomas has signed a deal with the state housing authority which does not want the “sharing” arrangement. Mr. Williams assured the matter can be resolved, and asked the Planning Commission to authorize staff to confirm the agreement is in place with Marv Thomas and allow the reconfigured project to proceed.  Rick Peterson asked about the overlap area marked “A” on the site plan. Mr. Williams stated there is a property dispute because there are two descriptions in the deed. Steve Vock explained the piece of property was incorrectly included in the Thomas parcel on one survey. The ownership is not being disputed, but the area is being shown on the site plan as a “grey area”.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the trash receptacle area. Mr. Williams said the area which will hold trash from the restaurant, Inn, and retail shops will be enclosed.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if there are any turning movement problems. The applicant said there are not.

 

Larry Williams mentioned the sidewalk plan by the town to decrease the width of the sidewalk to five feet, and requested the same be applied to the sidewalk in front of the Inn. The Planning Commission concurred.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Vock and Nicholas Cowles appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock explained the proposal has been modified to a simple subdivision around an existing residence. Adjustment of the boundary line is not needed. The newly subdivided lot will be 8.3 acres. New water service from Ordway Shore Road will serve the existing house. Lot #1 will remain as is. Lot #2 is not part of the orchard operation. It is simply a house lot. A private road serves the existing lots off Ordway Shore Road. The area has five acre zoning.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Steve Vock and Fred Tiballi appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock explained the simple subdivision to transfer five acres on the easterly end of the Tiballi parcel (Lot #3 on the site plan) to the town (combining with the town property in the area). Shelburne Public Works presently is using the property for sand/salt storage. Fred Tiballi mentioned the deed to the town for the property will come from the Sterns (currently co-owner of the property) so the town will receive 5 acres and the Tiballi lot will contain 117 acres. The town does not have a written agreement on the land swap.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dick Reid, resident, pointed out when the subdivision is made a portion of the VELCO line will be on town property according to the VELCO map.  Also, the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee wanted attention paid to McCabe Brook (east bank).

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Vock and Paul Bohne appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stev Vock reviewed efforts to locate the town’s salt storage facility so the exposed pile of sand/salt is covered and the brook is protected.  The proposed building is modeled after facilities built by Vtrans.  There will be a large retaining wall around the 60’x 100’ building. The siding will be wood and dark brown in color. The gable end of the building will face the road. Garage doors will face Turtle Lane. There will be two garage doors facing south, another overhead door and a man door. The existing salt shed will be removed.

 

Reg Gignoux mentioned flooding and if the building could be relocated farther away from the brook. Steve Vock stated insurance maps indicate flooding at different elevations. The building is not in the flood plain. For the 100 year flood, the elevation is 109.5’. The line goes around the building, not through it. The building can not be moved because the easement right-of-way on Turtle Lane for the school. Rick Peterson mentioned a letter from the Waldorf School (Chris Flynn), dated 5/10/06, expressing concern that the right-of-way access not be altered or impacted.  Steve Vock assured the building has been located out of the school’s right-of-way.

 

There was comment on the size of the building (6,000 s.f.). Paul Bohne noted tractor trailers with sand/salt will be able to unload in the building. There will also be equipment storage.  Lighting was discussed. Wall-pac lighting (cut off fixtures) over the doorways will be used, consistent with what is on the existing building. The lights are proposed to be on only when needed.  There was discussion of landscaping. Rick Peterson expressed concern the proposed cedars will not effectively screen the building. Paul Bohne pointed out there will be additional screening west of the affordable housing development as part of the agreement with Fieldhouse. Negotiations with VELCO are ongoing as it appears the new transmission line is against the hedgerow. VELCO appears to be willing to do plantings to soften the view. Additionally, there will be fencing for the baseball fields (back stop, perimeter fence) and landscaping along the fields mainly for shade.  Reg Gignoux suggested the town hire a landscape architect to provide ideas on landscaping to tie in the entire area. Kay Kraushaar suggested some plantings along Harbor Road, but still allowing for a view of the fields. The consensus of the Planning Commission is additional landscaping along the northerly side of Harbor Road is needed, and the applicant (Town of Shelburne) should develop a landscape plan that ties in all the town’s development in the area.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dick Reid, resident, provided a rendering of the proposed VELCO transmission line in relation to the five acre parcel being acquired by the town and McCabe Brook. Mr. Reid suggested the Selectboard work with VELCO on landscaping since the transmission line goes from the substation to Turtle Lane. Rick Peterson was not certain the Planning Commission can mandate action by the Selectboard. Mr. Reid asked if there are state and federal permits for the proposed building. Chairman Peterson assured all required permits must be obtained by the applicant.

 

Two representatives from VELCO stated aesthetic mitigation is ongoing, but will not happen in conjunction with the salt shed since the location of the transmission line is not known at this time. VELCO will take into consideration the town’s landscaping plan.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Vock and Paul Bohne appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock mentioned the ruling from the Town Attorney with regard to town facilities and exemption to setback requirements, noting it is not certain a boundary line adjustment is needed (the tenth of an acre adjustment is to meet setback requirements).

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/11/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, mentioned the five acre parcel and proximity of the building to McCabe Brook. Ms. Albert suggested a long term conservation easement for the area outside the building be discussed with the Nature Conservancy. Rick Peterson pointed out the town does not have development plans for the land around the building. Also, the VELCO line will be located there.  Steve Vock added a majority of the area on the west side of McCabe Brook is within the wetlands boundaries. Paul Bohne stated the town is working with VELCO and the Nature Conservancy to move the power line north of the ball fields, however, the Nature Conservancy is not interested in having this happen.  Conservation easements can be applied to the property without necessarily dealing with the Nature Conservancy.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

None.

 

MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Mike Lynch, John Wakefield, Ross Mohn, Charlotte Rancourt, Chris Preston, Randy Rowland, Kevin Clayton, Larry Williams, Denise Demers, David Demers, Gail Albert, David Bohn, Scott Jaunich, Jeff Jackson, David White, Steve Vock, Tom Koerner, David Webster, Will Jackson, Mark Lavinsky, Phil Mozeika, Staige Davis, Matt Wamsganz, David Pierson, Lee Zachery, Ed Fitzpatrick, Barb Hamblitt.

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (5/4/06 & 5/11/06)

3.      Design Review, Ann Johnston & Charlotte Rancourt, 245 Marsett Rd. (DR06-14)

4.      Design Review, Michael & Lois Lynch, 686 Falls Road (DR06-16)

5.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (DR06-18)

6.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 11 Falls Road (DR06-19)

7.      Design Review, Clayton Investments, Inc./Kevin Clayton, 5288 Shelburne Road (DR06-17)

8.      Request by Patrick Grangien to reconsider sign lighting at 195 Falls Road (DR06-15)

9.      Site Plan Amendment Continuance, Catamount/Harbour, LLC, 4750 Shelburne Road (SP06-03)

10.  PUD Site Plan Amendment, Catamount/Shelburne, LLC/Denise Demers d/b/a Z Scoops, 4066 Shelburne Road (SUB04-07R2)

11.  Final Plan Review, Ram. N. Sinha, 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB06-01)

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

13.  PRD Site Plan Amendment, Boulder Hill Limited Partnership, Webster Rd. (SUB01-06R2)

14.  Other Business, Correspondence

15.  Adjournment

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

 

 

Charlotte Rancourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Rancourt stated approval from the Design Review Committee was received for the proposed fence. Neighbors have been informed of the fence and expressed no objections.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Michael Lynch appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Lynch explained the proposal to replace the old, existing shed with an 8’x 12’ clapboard shed to match the house.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.

 

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 described the proposed sign for the Shelburne Inn, noting the Design Review Committee wanted the flutes at the base of the pole removed and the diamond shape on the pole to be consistent with the diamond shape on the gable end of the inn. The triangular shape at the top of the sign (with the address number in it) will try to be matched to the roof of the building. Mr. Williams mentioned the location of the sign does not conform to current regulations, but will conform to the amended RPUD regulations if they are approved. The height of the sign at the new grade of the property is 12’.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.

 

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 proposed windows at 11 Falls Road (two over two on the attic level and two over one on the second floor). The window in the rear of the house will be proportionate in shape to the other windows. A new fascia will be done on the south side of the building. The paint color will be a medium body green for the building with darker green trim. This color choice is consistent with the “lesser impact” buildings in the village, stated Mr. Williams.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kevin Clayton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Clayton explained the proposal for two signs on an existing sign post to better market the businesses currently occupying the building. There has been a sign on the post for over 50 years, but a new sign invokes the new sign regulations.  The signs will not be specifically illuminated. There are light fixtures on the pole which do not meet the regulations. Any lights will comply with the regulations. There is residual light from the road intersection and the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.  Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Committee suggested the signs be slightly shorter (three inches shorter) than proposed.

 

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 recalled the change of use for the site was approved by the Zoning Board in January, 2006.  The plan is to remove 10,000 cubic yards of bedrock behind the building at 4750 Shelburne Road and add five loading docks/doors with lights on the rear of the building.  All lighting will comply with Shelburne’s regulations. (It was noted the site plan must be updated to show the lighting.) There will be a storm water retention pond. The outdoor storage area can be eliminated if that is what the Planning Commission wants. There is ample on-site parking (82 existing spaces and only 57 spaces are required for the proposal).  Regarding traffic circulation, the driveway in the back is large. Pedestrian traffic and workers use the front driveway. Regarding wildlife, a wildlife expert stated there are no wildlife corridors or rare species on the site. A landscape plan has not been submitted since there will be no outside storage to screen and all activity will take place in the rear of the building, however, if the Planning Commission wants a plan, one will be submitted. The percentage of the cost of the project equates to approximately $3,000 in landscaping.  At some point, the front of the building will be redone, but that is not part of the present proposal, stated Mr. Wakefield.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.  Dean Pierce asked if the railroad company has been contacted regarding the outlet for the retention pond. John Wakefield said the railroad has not been contacted, but the area originally intended for outside storage could be used for the pond.

 

The approval of the fence by the Zoning Board was mentioned. The applicant must get approval for an amendment to the site plan if the fence is no longer part of the proposal.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

David Demers appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Demers stated the space exists as part of Z Pizza. The space was formerly occupied by the gift shop for Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. The space was leased with the intention to sublease to a vendor, but to date nothing has happened which lead to the idea to do ice cream sales.  A three foot high interior wall will be built to separate the ice cream area from the pizzeria. Homemade Vermont soft serve ice cream will be served. Four small tables with two seats each will be added (eight additional seats). It is expected that the ice cream patrons will likely be people who were at Z Pizza and decided to get dessert at Z Scoop.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

David Bohn appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bohn updated the Planning Commission on the changes to the site plan, including modifying the buildable areas on the lots, moving the southern boundary as discussed (both 75’), depicting the lake lot building area, changing the driveway on Lot #1 to 16’ wide to accommodate fire trucks. The eight inch water line from the public street to the beginning of the driveway is shown. There is a hydrant and three one inch water lines to serve the three lots.  The recommendation of staff will be followed with regard to the lines.  Additional test pits were done and the results were the same as the previous test pits confirming the soil conditions are appropriate for the design of the waste water system. The issues with the bio-filter (eco-design) are settled. The silt fence will follow the clear line for the replacement areas. Mr. Bohn stated the technical comments from the town’s engineer have been addressed or are being addressed by the applicant.

 

Mr. Bohn reviewed the landscape plan, including three overlay zones: No Cut Zone on the north end of the property (selective cutting/replacement for maintenance purposes); Visual Screening Zone to screen the houses (includes existing and planted vegetation); Selective Clear Zone Overlay (selective cutting of limbs and trees for a view, but maintaining screening).  The clearing limits for each of the houses are shown on the site plan. Rick Peterson commented on the overlap of the zones, and questioned which zone trumps the other. Mr. Bohn stated a certified arborist and/or the town must give approval to remove trees. Damaged or diseased trees can be removed, and some trees can be removed to allow for a view while maintaining the screening. Two inch caliper trees will be used as replacements on a 2:1 ratio. Mr. Bohn suggested in order to clarify the zones, the overlap could be eliminated. Rick Peterson pointed out the ‘no cut zone’ on the lake lot needs to be clarified.  Chairman Peterson asked if the list of trees in the Visual Screening Zone include native species. Mr. Bohn was not certain.

 

Rick Peterson asked about the layout easement plan (Sheet C-1.1) and if the building envelope on the lake lot is appropriately sized. Mr. Bohn stated the 75’ setback on three sides and 250’ from the one hundred foot line at the lake is a reasonable area for building.

 

Mr. Bohn reviewed the easement for lake access by lots #1 & #2, proposing a 10’ wide easement along the north side of the property line with a swale beside that to provide access. There is an existing lake access easement on the south side for the Pierson lot, but there is paving and a retaining wall on the easement and the area is mowed back an additional 30’. Mr. Zachary is encroaching on the Pierson easement. The property line is within a few feet of the retaining wall. To address the matter, Mr. Sinha proposes allowing the two property owners to resolve the easement issue or creating two 10’ wide easements on the Sinha property, one for the Pierson lot and one for lots #1 and #2. If the latter option is chosen, then the screening on the Zachery property will not be done. There was lengthy discussion of the need for a 20’ wide easement or the possibility of an overlapping easement.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06.  Chairman Peterson read a letter, received 5/25/06, from Mr. Zachary expressing concern about increased traffic to the lake, impact on drainage, and screening.

 

Dean Pierce advised the Zoning Coordinator may not want to make the decision regarding tree cutting, and if there is disagreement with the Zoning Coordinator, this could be construed as the need to appeal to the Zoning Board.  Mr. Pierce suggested a landscape architect be employed rather than an arborist.  Also, the beach area is in the lakeshore overlay zone which mandates preservation of trees so no trees should be cut.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ed Fitzpatrick, attorney representing Mr. Zachary, assured the residents want the beach access issue settled and have been working to that end. Screening is important to Mr. Zachary.

 

David Pierson, resident, stated his family has been using the beach access for the past six years, walking slightly on the Sinha property.  The neighbors have been trying to resolve the issue for a year, and a plan has been developed to find a harmonious solution. Mr. Pierson spoke in support of two 10’ wide easements, and felt the issue of who pays for and plants the bushes can be resolved. Mr. Pierson emphasized there is agreement with the neighbors on having two easements. The issue that remains to be settled is the planting of bushes. There was continued lengthy discussion of the easement issue. The Planning Commission felt having multiple easements for lake access is excessive.  Scott Jaunich, attorney representing Mr. Sinha, noted the plantings were not a condition of the permit, but were part of a negotiated settlement with the neighbors. Also, the plantings were not to screen development on the lake lot, but to screen the easement. Mr. Bohn clarified if a second easement is granted, then Mr. Sinha does not want to be responsible for the plantings as well.  Rick Peterson suggested Note #9 on the site plan could be modified to specify the easements, and that would resolve the issue.

 

There was further discussion of the overlap of the no cut zones and which zone has priority. Mr. Bohn stated the Selective Clearing Zone exists to allow for basic views without removing the screening from the lake. Tree removal in this zone requires approval from the town and a state certified arborist. Kay Kraushaar asked if (re)plantings are mandatory in the Visual Screening Zone. Mr. Bohn confirmed this, adding the plantings are to enhance the screening.

 

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, asked about the large building envelope on the lake lot. Mr. Bohn noted there is a wooded area, then a grassed field which slopes gently to the lake. Rick Peterson stated buildings can be placed any where within the building envelope. Setbacks must be met. Mr. Bohn added there could be multiple buildings as permitted and within the requirements of lot coverage.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Scott Jaunich appeared on behalf of the application.  Tucker Holland recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Attorney Jaunich briefly reviewed the history of the preliminary plan review by the Shelburne Planning Commission, noting the applicant’s repeated efforts to work cooperatively and address the concerns of the Commission.  Presently, the plan has been simplified and the conservation easement and Conservation Management Plan have been eliminated.  Exhibit C has been revised to delete the three level building area envelopes so construction is consistent with the zoning regulations.  The comments from the town’s engineer have been addressed. The rare and threatened/endangered plants will be flagged. The archeological reports will be submitted before the final plat is filed. The project complies with all applicable criteria. The applicant has submitted all that was requested and required, and is now asking for preliminary plan approval, stated Mr. Jaunich. Reg Gignoux questioned why the conservation easement and conservation management plan were removed. Mr. Jaunich stated the common area will be maintained. The easement and management plan were eliminated because it seemed they were problematic for the Planning Commission. The project complies with the zoning and subdivision criteria.

 

Rick Peterson asked how the perimeter of the property will be protected and maintained as well as the trees. Mr. Jaunich stated there is a 100’ setback which defines the property rights in the lakeshore overlay district with regard to cutting of trees so there is a buffer around the entire perimeter.  With regard to clear cutting or limited cutting, the project will stand on the lakeshore overlay requirements. Rick Peterson questioned why the Natural Communities Management Plan was eliminated. Mr. Jaunich stated the intention is to complete the plan for the future property owners. The plan is not a requirement of the site plan application.

 

Jeff Jackson made comment on the process and the Planning Commission’s actions, contending the Commission can not be satisfied no matter what was/is presented. Mr. Jackson stressed his family’s feeling about the land has not changed, but the review process is “out of control”. Kay Kraushaar referred to the section of the Town Plan relative to protecting sensitive areas in town. Mr. Jaunich interjected the town plan is a guiding document and the submitted site plan complies with the town plan with regard to the 100’ setback and viewshed issues.  Rick Peterson clarified if the applicant is feeling the Planning Commission is trying to “kill” the project, then that is the wrong impression. The project is a quality project and the tremendous effort put forth by the applicant is recognized.  A high level of detail and thought on how to handle the proposal has been demonstrated, and much of what the applicant presented was guiding the Commission in review of the project.  Jeff Jackson stated there is only one set of regulations for the town and the submitted plan adheres to those regulations.  Mr. Jackson reviewed again how the requests of the Planning Commission were addressed (concerns about building envelopes, cap on footprints, protection of open space, trees), but the Commission was not satisfied. Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission felt progress was being made with the application. Mr. Jackson disagreed, stressing the criteria were met and more was provided, but the Planning Commission was not able to deal with the project.

 

Reg Gignoux said he feels Jeff Jackson has totally mischaracterized the intent of the Planning Commission.  Rick Peterson apologized if the applicant felt anything was stated in the spirit of not wanting to have a conversation about the possibilities for the property as this was the intention of the Planning Commission. Chairman Peterson stressed he tries to run the Planning Commission in a fair and equitable manner.

 

Hilda White expressed her unhappiness with the decision by the applicant, adding the intent is to have the property around for a long time without having all the trees cut down as has been the situation in other areas on the shoreline.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/25/06, and a lengthy narrative on the application from the applicant, dated 5/15/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mark Lavinsky, resident, asked why public access was not discussed with the previous application that involved property bordering the lake. Rick Peterson explained with the property previously discussed, the Paths Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended the property is not appropriate for public access. It was clarified it may not be in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to mandate public access, but it is always requested when appropriate.

 

Phil Mozeika, Harbor Road, mentioned the detail submitted with the Jackson proposal and that it seems the Planning Commission has been selectively obstructing the project. Mr. Mozeika noted the property is private and has been on the tax rolls for the past 30 years.

 

Rick Peterson reviewed the time line of the project (preliminary plat filed in December, 2005, hearings held in February, 2006, and March which was rescheduled to April at the request of the applicant). Mr. Peterson noted the Planning Commission offered a full evening devoted exclusively to the project. The Commission has worked hard to keep pace with the applicant’s submittals, stated Chairman Peterson. Mr. Jaunich acknowledged the cooperative dialogue.

 

Staige Davis, resident, recognized the time spent by the members of the Planning Commission and the frustration with the process experienced by all parties. The regulations are a great guideline which the Commission interprets, continued Mr. Davis, and the applicant should be applauded for taking a stand to go back to complying with the regulations.

 

Randy Rowland, Pond Road, mentioned the situation on Monarch Road where the developer ignored the regulations and cut the trees, and now the damage is done. Mr. Rowland urged coming to an agreement on how to control the 100’ buffer and ensuring the houses are not an eyesore from the lake.

 

Tom Koerner, Harbor Road, took a straw poll of the Commission with regard to public access. The results showed a majority were not in favor of public access, but perhaps a canoe paddler’s trail on a voluntary basis by the property owners. Mr. Jaunich objected to the Commission now saying public access was not an issue when much work was done on title searches of Harbor Road for access. Mr. Jaunich stated if only one commissioner wanted public access, then the “silent majority” should have spoken up earlier in the process.  Tom Keorner said he is troubled by access to private property by the public. Details need to be fleshed out with regard to how the area is treated by the public, enforcement procedures, traffic, and other issues. Rick Peterson articulated with regard to public access requests, the Planning Commission does not exact public access on private property, but there have been many applications where it is obviously amenable to appropriate public access (biking, walking, open space for passive recreation). When these opportunities are presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission initiates discussion, and has found that applicants who at first bristled at the idea have found the access enhances their project. With the Jackson parcel and appropriate limited public access, the intention was to initiate discussion to its fullest extent.

 

Will Jackson stated he is not sure how to give assurance people will not clear cut their property, but the intention of the project is to create an attractive subdivision. The buyers of the lots will want to see the water and have a nice view so some trees will be cut. The houses may be visible from the lake, but that is not unusual for the area. There will be regulations in place so the houses have color qualities and are not obtrusive, and have architectural detail in keeping with what the town and people like (traditional architecture).  Mr. Jackson said it is unlikely the buyers will cut down all the trees after spending a lot of money on their lot and house. Everyone has been carried away with what might happen, said Mr. Jackson, assuring the rules and regulations will be followed and the people who will buy the lots will do the same. If not, the town will have to enforce the rules.  Randy Rowland cautioned against relying on the property owners, reiterating the situation in his neighborhood where the regulations were in place, but ignored.

 

Reg Gignoux commented there will be neighbors who take note of the cutting, but once a tree is cut, the damage is done and it is a long time to repair the damage. Shelburne Point is a priceless piece of property and the Planning Commission has to do everything to protect it. The Commission was not trying to stop the process, and felt aligned with the goals of the applicant.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Reg Gignoux requested time to review the materials submitted by the applicant, especially since the project has taken so much of a change of direction. Mr. Gignoux suggested after review of the materials, the Planning Commission discuss the matter in deliberative session before taking action.

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

 

 

Dean Pierce will forward correspondence to the Planning Commission on the schedule of adoption of the Regional Plan, on South Village, and Act 250.

 

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

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.