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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Gail Albert, Glenn Johnson, Barbara Johnson, Kevin Clayton, Pearl Moore, Stephen Marcos, Scott Jaunich, Wade Weathers, Jeff Jackson, Christine Armstrong, Ashley Matthews, George Winfield, Frank Cole, Dick Elkins, Jeff Shedd, Cindy Shedd, Tom Rugg, Wendy Seville, Clint West.

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

Glenn Johnson appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The site walk conducted by the Planning Commission was noted. Mr. Johnson stated he parked his car on the proposed right-of-way heading east and then heading west to determine the impact of his headlights on the neighboring properties. There was no impact when the car was facing west. With the car facing east and with low beams, the lights did shine on the three to four foot high shrubs under the window of the Goodrich house. Mr. Johnson said he spoke to Mr. Dubois about sharing a driveway on the northerly side of the property, but Mr. Dubois was not interested. Rick Peterson mentioned the letter regarding an alternate driveway. Mr. Johnson concurred it was the opinion of the Planning Commission to supply an alternative driveway. There was discussion of the advantages of a straight driveway versus a driveway with multiple turns relative to utilities, emergency vehicle access, and such.

 

Regarding storm water, Mr. Johnson noted the northwest corner of the lot is wetter than the rest of the lot. The Shelburne Public Works Director indicated adjustments to the existing culvert may be necessary. Mr. Johnson said the new owners of the proposed lot will have to handle the drainage issue.

 

Peter Gibbs noted the site plan submitted January 24, 2007 shows one access (the existing driveway) and asked if the proposal is to eliminate the northerly access. Mr. Gibbs also asked if the mature trees on the property will remain. Mr. Johnson said he is not proposing to eliminate any portion of the horseshoe shaped driveway. The trees will remain.  Rick Peterson clarified the location of the access is the only change being proposed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/25/07.  Dean Pierce explained combining driveways is intended to reduce the number of curb cuts. The letter from the Shelburne Public Works Director points out items to consider with a future application for a house on the newly formed lot.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cindy Shedd, neighbor, asked if the lot can be approved as a building lot without having all the drainage issues addressed. Ms. Shedd stressed the lot is very wet. Rick Peterson noted the property will be served by municipal water and sewer service. Storm water management is a concern to be addressed. Ms. Shedd commented on the driveway location, suggesting the driveway access be on the south side of the lot going straight to the newly formed lot. This layout would eliminate potential impact by car headlights on the neighbors. Also, one of the two driveways on the ‘horseshoe’ should accommodate a new house rather than creating a third driveway on the lot.  There was further discussion of the driveway. Mr. Johnson indicated he is not willing to share or close the northerly drive (and lose the horseshoe shape). Oil and gas deliveries are made on the northerly side of the driveway. Mr. Johnson pointed out a straight driveway will split his lot 60/40. Mr. Johnson said he wants a lot with driveway access, but not by splitting his lot. Ms. Shedd expressed further concern for headlights impacting the Goodrich property, and that the existing shrubbery will not adequately screen the lights. Rick Peterson pointed out at the next step of review more detailed information on the issues must be presented by the applicant.

 

Rick Peterson commented drainage and storm water run off are issues to be addressed. There needs to be assurance that whoever buys the lot will engage the necessary experts (civil engineer, hydrologist, surveyor) to address the issues so surface water dissipates without impacting neighboring properties. Cindy Shedd mentioned her long experience with water in their basement until investing $9,000 for a hydro-coating system. Ground water in the area is significant.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

David White thanked the Planning Commission and staff for the cooperative working relationship and sharing of documents, assuring the applicant heard clearly the message to clarify, minimize ambiguity, and not substantially change the meaning of the conditions of approval.  The Planning Commission received a copy of conditions of approval drafted by Mr. White. Changes to the conditions were reviewed. Mr. White stated the changes clarify, consolidate, or revert to original language when necessary.  There was discussion of the language pertaining to trees being cut per the advice of an expert and then approaching the Planning Commission on the necessity to replace the trees. The original text indicated if a tree is cut down it must be replaced or permission from the Planning Commission must be secured to not replace the tree. Following further discussion, there was agreement on the intent of the language (both versions).

 

Regarding the Natural Communities Management Plan (NCMP), Rick Peterson asked about a mandatory update at least every 10 years.  Scott Jaunich explained the NCMP is a voluntary document to be provided to the lot owners. If it is made mandatory to update the plan, the lot owners (or homeowners association) will have to hire an expert at their expense. Mr. Jaunich assured the NCMP will be updated periodically and the updated version will be submitted to the Town of Shelburne. Chairman Peterson recalled the objective was to provide a guidance document to the lot owners in order to guide them in the management of the land over time.  David White interjected the document is beyond what is required by the subdivision regulations. The document was drafted because the property owner (Jackson) believed it was a good idea.  The applicant objects to any “tightening” of the document, stressed Mr. White. Rick Peterson pointed out the subdivision regulations do speak to protecting tress and natural resources.

 

There was discussion of Lot #7. David White stated the Jacksons feel the lot should not have different permit restrictions than the other lots in the subdivision (i.e. there should be consistent treatment across all the lots).

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/25/07. Chairman Peterson mentioned the Planning Commission may want to deliberate the application in Deliberative Session following the regular meeting.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tucker Holland returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Rick Peterson noted the applicant requested the application be continued.

 

Frank Cole appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Cole stated his neighbor wanted extra pasture space so it was agreed to “swap” some land (three acres transferred to the adjoining lot at 83 Wind Ridge).

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/25/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

George “Ted” Winfield, 5296 Dorset Street, asked if a change of use on the property would require review by the Planning Commission. Rick Peterson explained there is five acre zoning in the district which allows one house every five acres. One primary use per lot is allowed. The acreage owned by Mr. Cole allows the possibility of three house lots. The Zoning Board handles all conditional use application. Uses that are permitted (“permitted uses”) must meet all requirements in order to receive a permit that can be issued administratively.  Dean Pierce added the approval does not restrict the number of structure on a lot so a multiple of barns, for example, could be built.

 

Christine Armstrong, neighbor, stated the existing horse barn and indoor riding ring are enormous, adding she did not receive notice these structures would be built prior to construction. Ms. Armstrong asked if there is any way to mitigate the impact of the lights on the buildings, such as requiring automatic shut offs, limiting the hours the lights are on, requiring the lights to be downshielded. Also, the septic system failed when the former owner had the property. A mound system to support a four bedroom house was installed, but there are now five bedrooms in the house plus an extra bath and pool house with a bath. The barn has a washer and dryer. Ms. Armstrong said she has witnessed run off from the house being directed into the mound system as well. Ms. Armstrong stated concern about run off and drainage impacting the surrounding properties.  Rick Peterson urged the neighbors to speak to the owner of the horse barn/riding ring (Holly Bartlett) about the lights. The Planning Commission may not be able to address the concerns under the current application being reviewed (i.e. application for property transfer). Lighting in agricultural developments could be addressed in the upcoming zoning regulations update.  It was confirmed the riding ring is not a commercial operation.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bill Posey appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Posey explained the pre-existing lot (since the 1970s) is behind property at 232 Mt. Philo Road. The 20’ wide deeded right-of-way across the West property was increased to 35’ wide, but a mylar was never filed in the town records. A 10’ wide road with one foot swales on each side for utilities and sewer will be built in the right-of-way. Initially the access will not be paved, but it will be constructed so that it could be paved if desired. The plan is to construct a duplex on the lot. The building will be sold as a primary residence (owner occupied duplex).

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/25/07.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

Kevin Clayton, neighbor, asked for clarification on the location of the right-of-way and questioned if a duplex is allowed on the lot. Dean Pierce stated the regulations govern the size of the building on the lot. Mr. Posey added lot coverage must be declared on the zoning permit. Regarding the right-of-way, it is a deeded right-of-way.

 

Tom Rugg, neighbor, asked for assurance the Snell driveway will not be enlarged due to the right-of-way.

 

Wendy Seville, 21 Littlefield Drive, noted the lot is wooded and the 30’ wide right-of-way will create a swath through the trees. Mr. Posey stated his plan is to leave as many trees as possible.

 

Pearl Moore, neighbor, asked for further explanation of the planned building on the lot. Mr. Posey stated a cottage style duplex will be built on the pre-existing lot. A facsimile of the duplex was shown.

 

Tucker Holland asked if there is a 10’ buffer to the West lot and a 20’ right-of-way. Mr. Posey explained there is a 35’ wide right-of-way which was originally 20’ wide. The driveway will not be located against the property line because there is a natural stone wall there. The driveway will be located within the right-of-way along with the drainage and utilities. Trees and bushes will be planted to provide privacy to the West lot. Tucker Holland observed the 1996 plan appears to show a 20’ wide right-of-way on the southern boundary. Dean Pierce confirmed the right-of-way is 35’ wide.

 

Clint West, neighbor, expressed concern about drainage, but added Mr. Posey appears to be addressing this issue. Mr. West mentioned the foundation damage to his house that occurred when the Maplewood development was built.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The Planning Commission will review the legal document(s) at the work session on 2/1/07.

 

Dean Pierce reported the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the Environmental Court that the party who filed the appeal does not fit the definition of “interested party”.

 

Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 7 p.m.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 9:55 p.m.