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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Ed Ste. Marie, Mrs. Ste. Marie, Ed Precourt, Mr. Clayton, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (8/24/06)

3.      Design Review, Joiner Valley Partners, LLC/Robert Cowles, 29 Harbor Road (DR06-26)

4.      Design Review, Edwin Ste. Marie, 879 Falls Rd. (DR06-29)

5.      Design Review, Robinson Hill, 25 McCabe Circle (DR06-30)

6.      Design Review, Chris & Karine Spagnoletti, 5462 Shelburne Road (DR06-31)

7.      Design Review, Arabesque/Harrington’s In Vermont, 5597 Shelburne Road (DR06-32)

8.      Design Review, Shelburne Meadows Association, McCabe Circle (DR06-33)

9.      Design Review, Aubuchon Hardware/Clayton Investments, Inc., 50 Shelburne Shopping Park (DR06-34)

10.  Discussion of Comments from Selectboard on Draft Town Plan

11.  Other Business, Correspondence

12.  Adjournment

In the absence of Chairman Peterson, Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of Chairman and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. It was noted Reg Gignoux would be recusing himself from review of the application which would result in the lack of a quorum.

 

 

Mr. and Mrs. Ste. Marie appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ed Ste. Marie explained his plan to replace plastic roofing on the porch with a metal roof and repair any damaged or rotted wood. The existing roof is leaking and causing rot.  Mr. Ste. Marie said he would also like to have the option to replace the dormer roofs over the doorways with enamel metal roofing, charcoal grey in color.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/14/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

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 9/14/06. Dean Pierce noted the proposed changes are internal to the building (half-walls and stairs).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

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 9/14/06. Dean Pierce explained the proposal for a dog run on the eastern wall of the house. There will be a small deck area within the enclosure. There is a fence between the Spagnoletti property and town property. The dog run will not be visible. Reg Gignoux commented positively on the improvements made to the property by the current owners.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

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 9/14/06. Dean Pierce stated the proposal concerns the free-standing sign which will become a façade sign on the building .The sign itself has been approved as a free-standing sign in another location. There was mention of another sign in the existing planter for Harrington’s. The planter is in the highway right-of-way and the sign is larger than allowed, but a variance was granted that authorized the sign to be up to 50 s.f. The existing sign is 35 s.f. Reg Gignoux asked if there had been any discussions with the property owner about bringing the sign(s) into conformance. Dean Pierce stated the property owner does not want anything to happen that might jeopardize the planter sign. There was further discussion of previous and existing signs on the property. Dean Pierce confirmed the existing signs do not exceed percentages.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

A representative from Shelburne Meadows Association appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The proposal was explained to install a 3.5’ high white cedar fence of French Gothic style parallel to Harbor Road spanning the length of the property of McCabe Circle (approximately 175’). The fence jogs around the fire hydrant by Unit #10. Each homeowner will be responsible for the section of fence in front of their property. For uniformity and ease of maintenance, the fence will not be painted (remain natural). There may possibly be some plantings along the fence. The purpose of the fence is to protect children from the road and separate the development from the road.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application dated 9/14/06. Reg Gignoux noted the fence cannot be located in the town right-of-way.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mr. Clayton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Clayton stated the sign which is already installed will not be illuminated. It was not the intention to install the sign before securing design review approval,but the tenant is very efficient and put up the sign sooner than expected. Mr. Clayton said Aubuchon Hardware intends to build a 30’x 50’ garden center building in the spring.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/14/06. Reg Gignoux mentioned lighting on the building should be brought up to current town standards. Dean Pierce stated the tenant (Aubuchon Hardware) will likely be coming before the Planning Commission with a site plan application for a station to fill propane tanks, and lighting can be covered at that time. Mr. Clayton noted their contract with the tenant specifies adequate lighting will be supplied by the landlord. There are five colonial fixtures on the building and two streetlights by Key Bank.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The Planning Commission reviewed commented from the Selectboard on the draft Town Plan as synthesized by the Town Planner. Items of further discussion included maps (need to reflect current conditions), connectivity of roads and paths, cul-de-sacs (desirable or not), using zoning regulations to maintain the mixed use area (broad front setbacks, parking away from Shelburne Road, shared driveways), stipulating adequate emergency vehicle access in residential developments, excluding constrained areas from density calculations, having open space as a separate lot in a PRD to avoid backyards being considered ‘open space’, having the review process begin with review of the natural resources on a site, requiring closing/reclamation plans for extraction facilities (gravel/sand pits, quarries), growth projections (110 people per year), VAST trail, Shelburne beach, affordable housing, requiring energy efficiency (Five Star) in construction, having a residential building inspector on staff. Dean Pierce will incorporate the revisions and comments as discussed. The Planning Commission will further discuss the matter at the 9/28/06 meeting.

 

Ed Precourt requested the shape of the building envelope on the lot accessed from Spear Street in the Kellyview development be changed from a rectangle to a square to accommodate a potential buyer with a building plan for an L-shaped house and pool on the lot. The impact on wetlands will not increase beyond the allowed half acre (the change is .39 acre to .47 acre). The Planning Commission did not see a problem with the requested change.

 

·        Letter from David Kelly, High Point Realty, regarding new zoning of the property owned by Mark Naud and Champlain Oil’s interest in the parcel.

·        Selectboard’s approval of planning grant application.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bob Furrer, Tom Barden, Bill Ford, Bob Mason, Grant Bush, Dan O’Rourke, Pete Serisky, Jess & Karen Oppenheimer, Paul Growald.

1.      Call to Order

2.      Approval of Minutes (9/14/06)

3.      Design Review, Joiner Valley Partners, LLC/Robert Cowles, 29 Harbor Road (DR06-26)

4.      Preliminary Plan Review, Paul & Helen Huyffer, 401 Barstow Rd. (SUB91-1R1)

5.      Final Plan Amendment, Peter & Margaret Serisky/Richard & Lori Allegrezza, 84 Clearwater Circle and 336 Clearwater Road (BLA95-5R1)

6.      Site Plan Amendment, Town of Shelburne/Shelburne Community School, 345 Harbor Road (SP00-3R3)

7.      Discussion of Zoning Changes Relative to New Statutory Requirements

8.      Other Business, Correspondence

9.      Adjournment

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

 

Deferred until the next meeting.

Paul Growald appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself from discussion/deliberation on the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There were no comments from the applicant.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/14/06. Dean Pierce noted the HP&DRC asked the applicant for detailed drawings before granting approval.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Reg Gignoux returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Jess and Karen Oppenheimer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jess Oppenheimer stated the lot division is now down the middle of the parcel. After further thought, it was decided a straight subdivision is preferred to a PRD. The site plan shows both lots meeting the minimum acreage requirement. Rick Peterson confirmed the two lots are less than 10 acres each so they cannot be further subdivided, and the frontage on lot #2 is 500’, meeting the requirement. The issues of concern by the Planning Commission are covered. Jess Oppenheimer mentioned the open space on the lots (what is remaining since the lots cannot be further subdivided) and the septic easement of over four acres. Rick Peterson asked about the building envelope so the location of the structures is limited to a specific area. Mr. Oppenheimer stated their desire is to have as much open space as possible. Tucker Holland asked about the building envelope on lot #1 and any future plans. Mr. Oppenheimer explained per the engineering analysis there could be another lot with regard to septic design, but this is not likely. The septic system is a community system because the system on lot #1 will serve both lot #1 and lot#2. It would be nice to have the ability to locate an outbuilding or shed on the lot. Chairman Peterson suggested the applicant show what is reasonable for them on the site plan.

 

There was discussion of the driveway serving both lots. It was noted the driveway needs to be shown clearly on the site plan. Dean Pierce stated the right-of-way is to the end of the driveway only. Peter Gibbs suggested the right-of-way be shown to the edge of the building envelope. Mr. Pierce explained the technical dimensional requirements (i.e. frontage) are resolved by doing a PRD in this case rather than a straight subdivision, plus the zoning administrator would not have a problem with a non-complying lot. Mr. Peterson noted a legal right-of-way could run the length of the easterly side of the lot. Kay Kraushaar asked the downside of doing a PRD in this case. Mr. Pierce stated PRD requirements are more extensive than a straight subdivision because of site plan review requirements (i.e. more time/review), and there is an additional form to complete.  There was further discussion of presenting the proposal as a PRD and what is needed to be shown on the site plan.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/28/06.  Dean Pierce noted comments from the Fire Chief have not yet been received. The letter from Jonathan Ashley was reviewed. Issues include a curtain drain (there will be one), confirmation there is adequate distance between the water supply and the septic replacement area, construction permit because of the number of acres disturbed, permit due to disturbance of wetlands, and waste water requirements. There was discussion of the replacement system in the buffer area. The applicant will try to reconfigure the replacement area.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dan O’Rourke representing the Serisky family appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. O’Rourke stated an agreement has been reached by the two property owners (Serisky and Allegrezza). The quit claim language indicates the Allegrezzas own what is on the western edge of the road.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/28/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bob Mason, Grant Bush, Tom Barden, and Bill Ford appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself from discussion/deliberation on the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bob Mason reviewed the configuration of the modular units on the school site. The units were used at CVU and are being reused by the Shelburne School. The units are slightly larger than the previous modular units and there is greater projection toward the street. Safety barriers will be installed. The play yard will remain where it is presently located. The existing fence will be reattached to the corner of the new units. A crane will be used to place the units on the site so no trees will have to be removed. The notation on the site plan relative to the trees can be removed.  The footprint is about 800 s.f. larger. There is far improved handicap accessibility.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/28/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs returned to the Planning Commission.

 

There was lengthy discussion of changing the zoning to residential on the westerly side of the railroad tracks by Harbour Industries. It was noted a petition for the change has been before the town for the past two years. There is no interest in the property for commercial use (current zoning), but with the easy access to Route 7 and proximity to the village and utilities (and the railroad if commuter rail service ever becomes viable), an affordable housing development on the existing building footprint makes sense. The Planning Commission’s concern for the property is it is a unique parcel bound by industry, the railroad, and conservation land. The density of housing on the site needs further thought. It was noted the rezoning should be included in the update of the Town Plan, rather than done piecemeal. Dean Pierce mentioned the Selectboard’s concern about providing adequate area for commercial and industrial development. It was noted the Selectboard may also feel a good use is to rezone the property to residential. There was further discussion of changing the zoning on the parcel to residential-commercial, and the potential effect on the river and lake.  Rick Peterson said he could support a change from commercial-industrial to residential, but not with tremendous density since the area is sensitive and needs to be protected. There is conservation land and the LaPlatte River on three sides of the parcel. Tucker Holland echoed the comments by Chairman Peterson. The property owner suggested a housing development for the site containing up to 70 units with a blend of single family houses and multi-family houses, 2,000 s.f. in size with small porches. There would be a road with sidewalks. The buildings would be set 10’ from the road and 15’ apart.  The development would mimic the one in Stowe done by Retrovest. There are seven acres that could be densely developed on the site.  There was further discussion of what is appropriate for the parcel and what opportunities make sense.  The location of the VELCO line was mentioned. There will be a 100’ swath on top of the bike path. The existing buffer will be clear cut for the VELCO line.

 

The Planning Commission discussed signs in the village district relative to the Shelburne Museum. The following language for Section 1680.8.1 was suggested:

 

Section 1680.8 Signs in the Village District

1.                  Parcels in separate and unaffiliated ownership used for commercial, business, nonprofit, institutional, or other non-residential uses shall be allowed one (1) free-standing sign not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area except that properties with more than one thousand (1,000) feet of frontage on Route 7 existing as of the effective date of this regulation shall be allowed an additional square foot area for each one hundred (100) feet of frontage over 1,000 feet up to a maximum of 40 square feet.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the changes previously discussed that were incorporated into the zoning bylaws document. Section 310.13 Group/Residential Care Homes was clarified to serve residents who have a handicap or disability as defined by law. Section 320.12.d (parking area) was deleted. Section 420.1 was corrected to reference Section 410.6. Section 1520, first line was modified to read: “Except for interior modifications and except for ordinary maintenance…” Item E (PUD in the Village District), #5 – change “at the edge of the right of way” to “to the edge of the Route 7 right-of-way”. The last two sentences in Section 1710.5 were deleted (the statements pertained to farm structures in the Flood Hazard Overlay District complying with the National Flood Insurance Program). Section 1810.1 Accessory was clarified to apply to the use of the principal structure (end of the first sentence). In Section 1810.2 the wording in state statute relative to free standing living will be added. The definition suggested by Mike Munson for dwelling unit as a “strict or self-contained unit” will be added. Statutory language will be inserted in Section 1810.31 Nonconforming.

 

The Planning Commission received the following handouts:

·        Memo from Dean Pierce on Town Plan changes to be discussed on October 12, 2006.

·        Information on event hosted by the MPO featuring Dennis Meadows on 10/18/06.

·        Conference in Killington by the Vermont Humanities Council.

·        Potential Planning Commission meeting schedule for November and December.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.