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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Cindy Shedd, Jeff Shedd, Janet Dubois, Richard Dubois, Joe Kaelin, Lori Bachand, Jamie Strotmeyer, Dave Marshall, Staige Davis, Deb Finzzell, David White, Jeff Jackson, Wade Weathers, Willard Jackson, Glenn Johnson, Barbara Johnson, Scott Jaunich, Helen Huyffer, Paul Huyffer, Sean Murphy, Jess Oppenheimer, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News), Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press).

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

Joe Kaelin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Kaelin explained the proposal to replace his porch which was built in the late 1800s. The house was built around 1849. Mr. Kaelin said he is trying to return the house to period architectural design. There will be a gable end roof on the driveway side of the porch so water does not drip onto the porch. Trim will be added. The porch will be the same size as the existing structure. Eventually there will be cedar shingles on the house and the same is desired for the porch (rather than the metal roof proposed by the HP&DRC). Pictures of the existing porch and the proposed trim were shown. If the valleys in the slate roof can be saved, then the slate roof will remain, said Mr. Kaelin, otherwise a fiberglass slate-like roof will be put on the porch. Mr. Kaelin requested a half-lap roof on the porch until a decision is made on the house roof. There is half-lap on the porch now.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06. Dean Pierce explained the HP&DRC felt slate would not be appropriate for the pitch of the roof on the new porch. The applicant was asked to provide photographs of the existing porch for the files. It was noted the applicant plans to show the proposed trim to the HP&DRC.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Lori Bachand appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Bachand explained in the process of selling the house, the title search revealed the existing deck and pool were installed without a permit. The request is for retroactive approval of these items.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06. Dean Pierce noted according to the HP&DRC the permit for the deck and pool would have been approved if the application had been submitted prior to construction/installation.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jamie Strotmeyer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Strotmeyer stated the property owners decided they wanted two skylights in the dormer.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Dave Marshall, CEA, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Marshall reviewed the site plan, noting issues with compliance to front yard and side yard setbacks. Approaches to create the lot and open space as shown on the site plan include proceeding with a PRD application or pursuing a boundary line adjustment of 18’ and variances from the Zoning Board. It was clarified the setback is 75’, not 50’.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06. Dean Pierce reported the Town Attorney advised the application cannot be reviewed as a PRD without a variance. The application can be reviewed with the understanding a variance will be necessary and likely be a condition of approval.  Rick Peterson observed it appears there is an existing noncompliance due to the location of the existing house. Mr. Pierce stated the perimeter buffer is an absolute. The Planning Commission cannot grant a waiver. The Zoning Board can grant a variance for the setback.  There was mention of modifying the regulations to allow flexibility in such situations (i.e. with nonconforming, existing structures on larger, sub-dividable parcels). Mr. Pierce recommended against encouraging setting the stage for a PRD application that will require granting of a variance. A traditional subdivision application will require a preliminary plan, and the applicant can pursue a variance and boundary line adjustment. The applicant can make the decision of whether to pursue a PRD or not.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Glenn Johnson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Johnson stated he has no intention to build on the newly created lot or retain a contractor to build on the lot. The lot will be sold. There are numerous deciduous and low growing shrubs and hardwood trees on the southern boundary line. Mr. Johnson referred to concerns expressed by Ernie Goodrich in a letter, dated 10/27/06, noting he does not want to negatively impact Mr. Goodrich’s property with car headlights. Issues of concern expressed by Mr. Goodrich include the location of the new driveway, the house structure on the new lot fitting with the neighborhood, landscaping and drainage.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06. Dean Pierce clarified the definition of a “flag lot” versus a lot with access via a right-of-way on one side.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jeff Shedd, neighbor, expressed concern about multiple driveways on the Johnson lot, and suggested the existing driveway serve the Johnson house and the newly created lot. Mr. Shedd also felt the house built on the new lot should fit with the area. Mr. Johnson assured he will have input on the design of the house since he will be an abutting property owner.

 

Richard Dubois, neighbor, stated the property line is not clear. Also, the back barn on the Johnson lot is in a low area where storm water collects. Water drains from the back of the lot to the front.

 

Cindy Shedd, neighbor, submitted and read a letter, dated 12/14/06, noting concerns with the Johnson proposal. Concerns include access with a new driveway, impact on privacy, headlights, noise, run off, drainage, screening, and having the proposed house fit with the neighborhood. Ms. Shedd suggested the Planning Commission visit the site to view existing conditions.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Scott Jaunich, David White, Willard and Jeff Jackson, Steve Vock, and Wade Weathers appeared on behalf of the application. Tucker Holland recused himself from the hearing.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Scott Jaunich expressed disappointment that there were no conditions of approval drafted for the application when the Final Plan was submitted on October 19, 2006 with the expectation of being before the Planning Commission in November which was pushed to December by request of the town. In addition, the Staff Report purports to reopen what has been discussed over the past two years.  Attorney Jaunich provided the Planning Commission a copy of the Environmental Court decision on the case of Ray Simpson which declared Preliminary Plan decisions are binding. With the Jackson application, two requests for changes were made, but otherwise the application is in full compliance with the Preliminary Plan approval. Neither of the change requests will trigger further review. One request was for a change of use (to allow a maintenance building by the tennis courts if desired by the property owners in the development) and the other request pertains to language in the deeds which is already covered in the covenants of record.

 

David White stated the Phase 3 archeological study which was done revealed there are no archeological restrictions on the land. The Natural Communities Management Plan (NCMP) is only a guidance document. The findings of fact can be clarified. The site plan shows the septic system projects to the 75’ setback and is not part of the shore zone.  Accessory structures will not be in the lakeshore zone. Docks, stairs, and seawalls have always been separate from the ‘limitations of structures’ issue. A map showing the decreased size of the tennis court area and maintenance building was submitted (document dated 12/14/06) as well as a list of discussion points (dated 12/14/06). The 50’ setback is not met so the proposal is to move the property line to allow for the required setback, stated Mr. White. The area where a maintenance building could be located will be reduced. The change will be noted on the site plan.

 

Peter Gibbs asked for clarification of the preservation of trees as stated under Condition #1. David White explained 25% based on area will be preserved cumulatively in the Forest Zone and 50% based on tree size and number will be preserved cumulatively in the View Management Zone.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about information on docks and stairs. David White stated the docks and stairs have not been designed or applied for as yet. The possibility of there being docks and stairs is being stated, but each lot owner will have to secure a permit to build their own dock and stairs. Ms. Kraushaar questioned if docks and stairs conflict with the Lakeshore Overlay regulations. Dean Pierce stated construction extending to the 102’ contour conflicts with the regulations otherwise the requirement is that setbacks from the edge of the property must be met.  The Planning Commission is not approving docks as part of the application under discussion. David White clarified their understanding and agreement being two accessory structures are allowed out of the buildable area. It was never the intention to include docks and stairs in the allowed number of accessory structures (two), but the property owner is not precluded from applying for the structures in the future.

 

Rick Peterson referred to the Common Use Easement document which allows shared use of lots in the central area and core beach area, expressing concern about further development and the use of motorized vehicles. Chairman Peterson urged review of the language to ensure it states what is intended. Scott Jaunich explained there is a deeded right to the common use area and the language says the use of the easement is limited by restrictions in the declarations. The applicant agreed to review the language.

 

Hilda White asked if there will be lights at the tennis courts. David White stated there are no plans for lights at this time. The lot owners can pursue approval of lights if desired.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06. Chairman Peterson commented that the Planning Commission had hoped to be able to finalize the project and to have received the draft conditions of approval for review prior to the meeting. The Commissioners have not read the Simpson decision, but the Shelburne subdivision regulations (Section 540) say Preliminary Plan approval does not constitute approval of the subdivision. The Planning Commission must ensure all the conditions and documents associated with the project are clear and understandable to whomever is the reader. Also, the Planning Commission always wanted assurance any conditions related to the Shore Zone are known to the lot owners so perhaps these can be abbreviated and included in the deeds. The Natural Communities Management Plan should be strongly suggested as a guidance document, and perhaps the document should be personally delivered to each lot owner before the closing on the property is finalized, suggested Chairman Peterson.

 

It was suggested the Planning Commission hold deliberative session on the project following the regular meeting to review information just received and to draft recommendations to staff and the Town Attorney. The hearing on the project would be continued to the next available date. Scott Jaunich agreed provided the conditions drafted in deliberative session are consistent with what was anticipated as part of the approval conditions without substantial change, such as bootstrapping the management plan into more than a guidance document. Following brief discussion, there was agreement draft conditions of approval will be done by January 5, 2007.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Marge Sharp, Shelburne News, asked if the tennis courts are for exclusive use by the residents of the development. David White confirmed only residents of the subdivision and invitees will have access to the courts. The courts will not be open to the public.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

Sean Murphy appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Murphy explained the proposal for a 10’x 30’ concrete pad (six inches thick) at the rear of the building for an air conditioning unit. There will be no change in traffic or pedestrian circulation. There will be no lighting changes. The unit makes a “clunk” noise so a 16’ high vinyl fence will be installed around the pad. The noise level will be below allowed limits.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Jess Oppenheimer, Paul Huyffer, and Helen Huyffer appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There was discussion of the building envelopes being smaller than the area that meets the setback requirements. Jess Oppenheimer stated the proposal abides by the regulations for a PRD and setting aside a large area of open space.  A waste water permit for the proposal is forthcoming.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/14/06.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The Planning Commission received the following information:

a) Legal documents pertaining to the WAG subdivision are forthcoming for review;

b) Letter from Redstone regarding zoning change for consideration;

c) Zoning change request by Bullrock for property adjacent to Shelburne Bay Senior Living for consideration (similar to the issue with the Zen Center: PRD with variance);

d) Issue of lack of notification for site plan amendment has been raised in connection to Rice Woods;

e) Selectboards from St. George and Shelburne to meet to discuss the boundary line associated with the Anderson property;

f) Tape of the presentation on forming a Development Review Board will be available;

g) Shelburne Selectboard continued the public hearing on non-controversial and technical changes to the zoning regulations until 1/9/07;

h) Final hearing on changes to the Town Plan scheduled for 1/9/07.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 10:22 p.m.