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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Douglas Seyer, Deb Bergh, Gail Albert, Patrick O’Brien, Guy Tousignant, Paul Irish, Spencer Knapp, Barbara Cory, Tom Edwards, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Public Hearing: Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment

3.      Approval of Minutes (5/25/06)

4.      Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Forest Park Realty, portion of 7727 Spear Street (SUB06-04)

5.      Site Plan Review, Tom and Dawn Edwards Revocable Trust/Harvest Equipment, 2383 Shelburne Road (SP06-06)

6.      Other Business, Correspondence

7.      Adjournment

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

Chairman Peterson opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Larry Williams co-owner of the Shelburne Inn property, spoke in support of the proposed zoning change to the R-PUD bylaws, noting the proposal to remove the existing motel building on his property and replace the structure with another building with lot coverage not to exceed 125%.  Mr. Williams felt eventually the zoning in the village should be modified so that R-PUD bylaws can be eliminated altogether.  Liam Murphy, attorney for Mr. Williams who drafted the language of the R-PUD amendment, explained the language as drafted focused on allowing the Planning Commission to give permission to an applicant to remove a building. Rick Peterson pointed out the Planning Commission is responsible for the entire district and cannot focus solely on one property, though the former Shelburne Inn is a significant part of the zone under discussion. Hilda White expressed reluctance to approve the amendment since the purpose of the R-PUD bylaws was to maintain existing buildings (not tear them down). Ms. White was concerned about the potential for historic buildings or buildings the town wants to remain in the village being torn down. Tucker Holland pointed out the exterior façade of the motel building was changing dramatically regardless of the internal changes to the structure, and the proposed amendment will allow a building far more desirable than the existing building. The Design Review Committee can handle the “optics” of a building (i.e. maintaining the outside look of a building as desired by the town), assured Mr. Holland.  Liam Murphy added projects will have to meet all other approvals from the town so the Planning Commission can control whether a building is torn down or not.  Rick Peterson commented the concern is not that an “ugly duckling” building will be removed, but under the proposed amendment, a beautiful structure such as the Shelburne Inn could be torn down and replaced with 125% lot coverage and that was not the anticipated outcome of the regulations. Liam Murphy acknowledged the Planning Commission must look at the whole picture of zoning and reiterated all approvals from the town must be met by the applicant, but the issue of the Zoning Board not approving 100% tear down of the building (and not knowing what percentage constitutes the building remaining) while the Planning Commission approving the project has effectively stopped forward progress. With the proposed zoning change, the Shelburne Inn project can proceed. The property owner does not want the building to remain as it exists. The proposed zoning is an attempt to address the matter. Mr. Murphy requested the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Shelburne Selectboard to approve the amendment.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the criteria for approval to allow a building to be torn down.  Liam Murphy stated there are design review criteria. There was further discussion of existing buildings in the village that could be torn down and replaced under the amendment, and zoning fitting in the village (i.e. the village pre-existed the zoning).

 

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.

 

 

With regard to another zoning change, Liam Murphy mentioned the impact on Rice Lumber by the mixed use zoning of their property. Rice Lumber will not be able to modernize their building (required by state storm water regulations) under the 10,000 s.f. building limitation of the zoning. Mr. Murphy will submit his comments in writing for consideration by the Planning Commission.

Patrick O’Brien appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. O’Brien stated the existing barns, buildings and house are within the 75’ perimeter setback required with a PRD. One option is to create a lot around the structures separate from the PRD (labeled Lot #1) and another lot which will be part of the PRD (labeled Lot #1A). The buyer of Lot #1 will be obligated to also own Lot #1A. Mr. O’Brien will further discuss the idea with the Town Planner.  Rick Peterson observed removing Lot #14 from the PRD eliminates the requirement of maintaining 50% open space. It was noted Lot #14 is proposed to be viable for agricultural use and maintained as such. It is also desired to keep the existing buildings together with the adjoining open land/agricultural land (i.e. a working farm). Patrick O’ Brien assured the farmette and Lot #14 will be protected with regulations, and the other lot owners will be informed and understand the property is a working farm with all the amenities.  Mr. O’Brien indicated he may work with the Land Trust on the matter though there are several different ways to approach the issue.

 

The applicant stated all requirements on the Preliminary Plan Checklist will be addressed.  The potential of a fire pond on the property will be investigated.  Several different options were investigated for an access drive. Having an access by the farmette or farther down Spear Street Extension were eliminated because of potential conflict with farm activities and due to topography. Having an access drive through the meadow will disrupt prime agricultural land. One potential is to have the road come around below the development into a cul-de-sac. This configuration will allow for contiguous open space. The access road will be a private road built to town specifications.  Any noise concerns can be mitigated, assured the applicant.

 

Pat O’Brien addressed an email from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee (noting the email was received just prior to the hearing which did not allow much time to formulate a thorough response). Recommendations from the committee include language saying Lot #13 and Lot #14 will not be further subdivided and agricultural enterprise will be sustained, an Ag Management Plan should be developed for Lot #14, the housing lots (#1 through #12) should be clustered more tightly on a loop road or “Y” road configuration, the building envelopes should be moved closer to the internal road, cutting restrictions should be put in place, there should be a management plan for the woodland, and alternate access road locations should be investigated.  Mr. O’Brien stated clustering the houses in the meadow was investigated (a site plan for 19 lots with tract housing was shown), but it was felt fewer lots with higher end housing would be more appropriate for the site. Mr. O’Brien said a more contemporary house with natural woodwork that fits into the site is envisioned. Houses such as this can not be built if they are clustered.  Also, with clustering, the land must fit with the development rather than the houses fitting with the land. Clustering does not fit in the existing neighborhood.  Alternate access roads are being explored, continued the applicant, and building envelopes will be defined. There will be tree cutting restrictions.

 

Mr. O’Brien addressed the suggestion of a traffic study, pointing out a traffic study was recently done for a (larger) project planned down the road and it was found the intersection did not meet the warrants for a traffic light.

 

An access road off of Irish Hill Road (shown in pink on the site plan) and how the lots are accessed was reviewed. Lot lines will change slightly though Lot #3 will be cut  in half with half being open space and Lot #5 and Lot #6 will be combined into one lot. There will be no more building lots created.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/8/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, clarified the suggestion for clustering and moving the building envelopes being relative to reducing the size of the lots in the back of the parcel to protect more forest land and including the land removed from the back of the lots as part of the conserved forest land. Also, a plan to manage this conserved land is suggested.  Patrick O’Brien explained the proposed lots are only about an acre in size. The layout of the subdivision does take into consideration much of what is suggested by the conservation committee.  There are not rare or endangered species on the property. Consideration of potential views from the western edge of the site was given in the layout plan. Approximately 60% of the parcel will remain open space.  The layout allows for a house, a yard, and some woods on each lot.

 

Spencer Knapp, resident, thanked the Planning Commission and the applicant for their efforts, but expressed concern the concept plan is still developing making it difficult to determine what will actually be built on the land. Concerns include access and intensity of development around the meadow.  Mr. Knapp also urged further investigation of an access road in the area of the existing barns by Thompson Road at the south end of the property since this access location will be less obtrusive.  Mr. Knapp acknowledged an access farther down Spear Street Extension will need engineering.  Mr. Knapp said he would like to walk the proposed “pink” access road and study the location further. Regarding intensity of development by the meadow, the developer indicated some of the lots will be reconfigured, and this should be further studied to determine how the lots will inter-relate to surrounding properties.  Other concerns include preserving open space, preserving wildlife access, and management of the meadow and forest. Mr. Knapp noted other residents in the neighborhood (Kessels) are not in attendance and have concerns. Patrick O’Brien noted the Kessels have not contacted him regarding the “pink” access road layout.

 

Deb Bergh, resident, commented the proposed “pink” access road is a better access than the previously proposed circular road, and there is better configuration of the lots.

 

Barbara Cory, resident, stated with all the outstanding concerns it is premature to approve the application. There is wildlife in the meadow so the meadow must be conserved along with the forest.

 

Paul Irish, resident, observed having an access road along the border of the property will impact the vista. There are also drainage issues.  Having the access farther down Spear Street Extension will impact the Mills house (i.e. headlights shining in their windows).  Also, fire trucks will have to go up a hill, down a hill, and up again which impacts response time. Having the access road by the existing farm will impact response time by the Fire Department as well.  Also, having the road cut through the meadow will impact the wildlife pathways in the area. The visual impact of the access road (off of Irish Hill Road) is buffered by the existing hedgerow.  Patrick O’Brien said he does not favor an access road by the farmette. An access farther down Spear Street Extension can be done if the neighbors want to do the engineering study. The access road is shown on the site plan in the indicated location because that is the best location for the road, stressed Mr. O’Brien.

 

Claude LaPierre asked for clarification of what is meant by an “Agricultural Management Plan” as stated by the Natural Resources Committee. Gail Albert explained the plan would address keeping the fields in agricultural operation and not left to go fallow. Patrick O’Brien pointed out Lot #14 includes a building envelope so the owner of the lot could build a house there if the resident of the farmette stops farming.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Doug Seyer and Tom Edwards appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant noted the property is divided between two towns, Shelburne and South Burlington, which creates a hardship in meeting requests from both towns and finding a tenant.  The plan for a commercial landscaping and equipment sales store was explained. Lawn and garden equipment will be displayed inside and outside the building. Harvest Equipment has an operating store in Swanton.  The city of South Burlington wanted all the storage to be in one location and isolated from other activities on the site. A bike rack was also required. Both of these requests have been satisfied, stated Doug Seyer. There will be no access to the back of the building structure (the ramp shown on the site plan will not be built). Handicap parking and entry is by the main entrance door to the building.  There are 14 on-site parking spaces. The existing landscaping will be improved. The existing sign will not change in size.  The shrubs around the sign will be trimmed. Presently, the lights for the sign shine from the ground upward, but this can be altered to downward lighting. The sign straddling the property line belongs to the adjacent restaurant.  The shrub line across the face of the building will be removed because it is overgrown. Planting boxes will be added by the large garage doors.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/8/06.  Dean Pierce stated the sign must conform to current regulations and must be 10’ from the front property line.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dean Pierce announced the Selectboard continued the public hearing on the draft Town Plan until 6/13/06.

 

The Planning Commission received material from the attorney representing the Jackson family regarding proposed development on their property. Deliberative session will be held on 6/14/06 at 7 p.m.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the ramifications of the zoning change with regard to other buildings in the zone. Historic structures could be demolished under the proposed zoning change. There was mention of the need for criteria to guide the Planning Commission on whether a building can be demolished or not.  Concern was raised about compromising the ability to control building ‘knock downs/rebuilds’. The Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments was reviewed, and the 4^th paragraph under Item #2 was modified to read: “At present the Town’s zoning bylaws deter “knock downs/rebuilds” in the Village Core Overlay District (within which complete removal of a building may result in forfeiture of the ability to reconstruct in the same footprint). The fact that the proposed amendment might address one unattractive building may not be an appropriate justification if it could also allow removal of many historic ones.”

 

 

The Planning Commission set a meeting date of June 14, 2006 to begin the update of the zoning regulations.

 

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

The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jan Hollinger, George O’Brien, Beth Wardwell, Bonnie Stiles, Kathleen O’Brien, Karolyn Towne, Rebecca Ramsey Shell, Susan O’Brien, Gail Albert, P. Bezalel, Amy Cooper Shell, Sheldon Cooper, John Dinse, Willard Jackson, Charles Bigalow, Steve Vock, David Hedden, Richard Marko, Paul Bohne, Rose Garritano, Kevin Worden, Tony Stout, Will Jackson, Jeff Jackson, Scott Jaunich, David White, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News), Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press), and others.

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (6/8/06)

3.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (DR06-20)

4.      Design Review, Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, 5247 Shelburne Rd. (DR06-10)

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

6.      Final Plan Review, Town of Shelburne, 154 Turtle Lane (SUB06-06)

7.      Sketch Plan Review, Maureen O’Brien (Trustee of the Helen O’Brien Family Trust) and George O’Brien, 899 Barstow Road (SUB93-3R1)

8.      Final Plan Amendment, The Turkey Ridge Partnership/Hudson (Tucker) and Michelle Holland, 2532 Harbor Road (SUB03-07R1)

9.      Other Business, Correspondence

10.  Adjournment

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

 

Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Williams noted the application is for six ceiling mounted lights on the porch and two façade mounted lights.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06. Rick Peterson noted the Design Review Committee approved the application with the stipulation that bulbs no brighter than 60-watts are used.

 

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 stated the Planning Commission has seen and approved some of the signs in the master sign plan. Approval of the entire sign package is being sought.  Approval from the Design Review Committee for two first floor retail signs is being pursued. The tenants will secure approval for their specific signs from the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission. The signs will be posted on the porch fascia. A directory sign will be mounted on the façade perpendicular to Route 7. The master plan also includes traffic signs (stop, no turn) on the site.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06.  Dean Pierce commented having the overall sign plan is useful to speed up approval of signs for the site. The free standing sign and the sign for “The Bearded Frog” establishment have already been approved by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Scott Jaunich appeared on behalf of the application. Tucker Holland recused himself.  Rick Peterson apologized to anyone involved in the project if he in any way offended them or detracted from the project. Mr. Peterson suggested proceeding forward on a positive footing.  The applicant and his representatives concurred.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Scott Jaunich reviewed requested changes to the draft approval conditions as presented in the supplemental staff report, dated 6/22/06. Attorney Jaunich stressed the Jacksons want to maintain and manage the forested zones. View zones will be no larger than a 200’ corridor and no wider than the forestry management zone next to it. Fifty percent of the trees within the view zone will be maintained. Regarding seawalls, it may be necessary to use concrete in some instances, but the surface will be faced and screened. There will likely be docks and stairs in the proposal.  Regarding the Conservation Management Plan, the applicant views this as a guidance document, stated Mr. Jaunich, not a compliance document.  Rick Peterson mentioned compliance when the zoning permit is pulled is past practice. Mr. Jaunich referred to the buildable envelopes on the lots, noting on some of the lots it is apparent where a house would be located, but there are options on other lots. Mr. Jaunich suggested holding the options open at this point in time as long as approval is secured before trees are cut. David White clarified the initial plan submitted at the time of the permit can be revised if the corridor is not cut.  Scott Jaunich reiterated 50% of the trees will be maintained as well as half the amount cut will be maintained.

 

Reg Gignoux suggested the acronym “dbh” be defined, and “Natural Communities Management Plan” be encapsulated so the reader knows what is being referenced.

 

Rick Peterson suggested for clarification and to shorten the paragraph, Subsection “C” should be extrapolated from approval condition 1.B at line 29, the sentence beginning “At the time of the application for a buildings permit” in the paragraph beginning with “Upon approval by the Planning Commission…”.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06, and a supplemental staff report, dated 6/22/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Vock briefly reviewed the subdivision of the Tiballi property and incorporation of the land into town property. The land has been used by the town by agreement with Mr. Tiballi for many years in the past.  Regarding wetlands, there are none within the construction limits of the proposal. Conditional use approval was granted by the Shelburne Zoning Board for the use. Regarding screening, a comprehensive review of the Harbor Road corridor is being undertaken by the town.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06. Dean Pierce mentioned a letter form the State of Vermont regarding the structure not being within the flood zone, but the grading and pavement being within the flood zone.  The letter specifies conditions to follow.  The Zoning Administrator will likely attach the conditions as part of the zoning permit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, mentioned the town considering a conversation with the Nature Conservancy regarding the land adjacent to McCabe’s Brook.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tony Stout with Hendel & Noyes appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Stout reviewed the subdivision of approximately 150 acres owned by the O’Brien family on Barstow Road and Dorset Street and the proposal for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) so the houses can be clustered in the woods and at the edge of the meadow on the west end of the parcel. There are seven lots proposed to be located along Dorset Street, tucked in where they fit best.  There is on-site septic capacity for 25 houses per testing in three areas on the parcel. The mound sites will be in the woods, on the west side of Dorset Street on the ridge, and on the east side of Dorset Street below Cheese Factory Road.  The lots will have individual drilled wells. Well yields in the area are favorable. Well interference issues will be investigated.  Agricultural soils will be preserved as much as possible. Regarding hydrologic issues, there are Class 2 wetlands in the center of the site which drain to the south and on the eastern end of the parcel which drain to the south into Shelburne Pond. There are pockets of Class 3 wetlands and two farm ponds (Class 2 wetlands). The drainage goes south on the east end, north in the middle, and south on the west end of the property.  The houses will not be located in the wet or low lying drainage areas.  Regarding scenic issues, the area is a neighborhood with existing homes. The site plan shows main views, public/private views, distant and foreground vistas.  There is a view at the corner of Barstow Road and Dorset Street looking southeast so the houses will be tucked at the bottom of the slope. The houses will be one and a half story construction versus an executive style house. On the other corner of Dorset Street, there is a view of Mt. Mansfield so the house will be sited to the south. There is a nice long view on Dorset Street south from South Burlington. The houses will be tucked off to the side to avoid infringement on the view. On the ridge behind the Hollyers, the houses are at the back of the ridge and not along the road.  The houses are back in the woods along the loop of the access road. It is suggested the road be a cul-de-sac by lots 14, 15, 16, and 17, rather than a through road by the farm pond. There could be an emergency access there.  The road is shown at 18’ wide with two foot shoulders on each side to provide a rural feeling.

 

Mr. Stout showed a site plan following conventional zoning for 25 lots with five acres each, 400’ depth and 400’ frontage. Mr. Stout also showed photographs from various points of view, including Barstow Road into the meadow, the corner of the main intersection looking southeast, south on Dorset Street looking east, on Dorset Street looking toward So. Burlington, looking toward Mt. Mansfield, and from the South Burlington approach.

 

Rick Peterson asked about relocating the four lots on the easterly side of Dorset Street to the west side of the road to keep the east side completely open. Mr. Stout agreed two of the lots could be located on the west side of the road. There are five houses proposed behind the Hollyer parcel. There is concern about overloading the meadow. There will also be an impact on the views.

 

There was discussion of the use of the common land (for  horses, gardening, and such). The area west of the Hollyer property is common land with the loop road to be maintained and kept open by the homeowners association. The homeowners of the houses on the east side of Dorset Street will be responsible for the open meadows on the west side of the road. There is still discussion of who will maintain what and to what level, stated Mr. Stout. No more development is proposed than what is shown on the site plan.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06.  Dean Pierce noted the Paths Committee will have further comments. The Paths Committee suggested an easement on Dorset Street on the west side of the property to the intersection to the north, and that the developer do a bike lane on Barstow Road and Dorset Street.  The Fire Chief has suggested a fire pond and dry hydrant may be needed. The Fire Chief may want to discuss road width and pull offs for emergency vehicles.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Richard Marko, Barstow Road, stated by the ridge abutting his property there is a major wetland with lots of wildlife (the wetlands have crayfish). Mr. Marko also said they have horses on their property and support the five acre zoning requirement.  There is concern about the smell of manure from the horses which residents in the proposed houses might find offensive.

 

Sheldon Cooper, Barstow Road, stated there are not many houses in the area and there is much space between houses. The proposal is out of character with what Barstow Road looks like now. Also, there are water supply problems so the development could have an impact.  Barstow Road has lots of commuter traffic. The development will add more cars onto the roadway.

 

John Hollyer, Barstow Road, stated his septic system is across the street from his old farmhouse and a ‘grey water’ outlet across Dorset Street as well. There is a stream that runs through the cellar of his house. Mr. Hollyer said there is language in his deed regarding the water supply from his well. Their 150’ deep well runs out once a summer or so. Mr. Hollyer mentioned the views from his house being the same as viewed 150 years ago. There are views of Camel’s Hump and Mt. Mansfield.  Mr. Hollyer expressed concern about the density of the development. Mr. Hollyer noted he does woodworking and blacksmithing which creates noise.  Mr. Stout stated there could be “right to smith” language added to the deeds.

 

David Hedden, 708 Barstow Road, stated if the number of houses on Barstow Road is counted, the proposed development will double that number, and that is a significant change. There are many commuters on Barstow Road so adding more traffic will significantly impact the area. Mr. Hedden said their well has run dry a couple of times in the 20 years of living in their house so the number of proposed homes taking water from the same aquifer is of concern.  As a development proceeds, continued Mr. Hedden, the impact is not realized for some time. Mr. Hedden suggested a project the size of the proposal be done gradually over an extended period of time with evaluation of each phase.

 

Beth Wardwell, Barstow Road, asked about accessing the development from Dorset Street. Mr. Stout noted there is a large wetland that prohibits this.

 

Patricia Bezalel, Barstow Road, stated the traffic on Barstow Road has increased recently and with 25 new houses there will be an incredible increase in traffic. A traffic light may be needed. There is a wait to enter Spear Street or Dorset Street now. Ms. Bezalel stated they experience water problems constantly, but especially in dry times. Also, there is concern the high density of houses will impact wildlife in the area. There are deer, turkey, birds, and it is wonderful to see the animals, said Ms. Bezalel.

 

Rose Garritano, Dorset Street, mentioned concerns about ground water, traffic, and impact on views (especially by houses south of Cheese Factory Road). Ms. Garritano stated at the intersection of Dorset Street and Cheese Factory Road, the view of Shelburne is lovely. Across the fields you can see Shelburne Pond and Camel’s Hump.

 

Tony Stout stated there is a buffer area on the west side of the parcel as well as wetlands which have been mapped. The houses will be 250’ from the property line. It is expected the building envelopes will be modest and restricted to the front side of the lots. The intent is to have the houses tucked into the edge of the trees, and to have the building envelopes in the wooded area, not in the meadow, though it is likely some structures will be seen at the edge of the woods. Drainage pathways and wildlife corridors will be respected. There are no significant wildlife habitats and natural areas on the site per the evaluation that was done.  Craig Hendel will do a water supply analysis, including the recharge area, well yields, long term yields, location of fractures. A number of the wells in the area are owned by the O’Brien family. Pump tests can be done to ensure there is no well interference. The O’Brien family is well aware of the views in the area, and it is agreed potential traffic impact on Barstow Road from the development must be addressed. Clear cutting will not be allowed (this would be counter-productive in terms of the value of the lots). There will be deed restrictions regarding clear cutting the lots. The common land has patches of trees which should remain. There will be trees cut on the mound system on the slope. The trees are cedars, mixed hardwoods, pines, and hemlocks. There will be trees below the mound system, but not on the slope and the area above.  Mr. Stout described the size of the mound systems (typical single family house mound system, but an advanced treatment system will be used).

 

Residents questioned precedence for 17 houses in one area on a mound system. Hilda White noted her development had many more houses on septic systems until recently connecting to the municipal sewer service.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kevin Worden appeared on behalf of the application. Tucker Holland recused himself from the Planning Commission and appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself from the Planning Commission.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Tucker Holland explained the proposal to relocate the building envelop on Lot #2 at 2532 Harbor Road. The building envelope will be tucked into the trees to be less prominent. The size of the building envelope will be decreased.

 

Kevin Worden reviewed the existing site and the proposal. The existing barn will be on Lot #2. Technical details regarding sewer pipes and such will be addressed.  The building envelope is pulled out of view from the lake.  A single story structure will be built. The existing barn will be renovated so it can be used.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06.  Dean Pierce reported no issues from town staff have been raised with regard to the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tucker Holland and Peter Gibbs returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Dean Pierce reported the requested final plan amendment from the Boulder Hill developer was withdrawn.

 

The Planning Commission will discuss the letter regarding the Mixed Use Zone by Shelburne Bay Senior Living at the work session on the update of the zoning regulations.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 9:29 p.m.