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:            Elizabeth Anthony, Greg Jacques, Dan Senecal-Albrecht, Herb Kessel, Barbara Kessel, Paul Irish, Paul Bohne, Jim Kleptz, Gail Albert, Bob Rushford, Patrick O’Brien, Marge Sharp(Shelburne News).

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

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself from deliberation/decision on the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

 None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/8/07.  Dean Pierce stated the property received previous design review approval. As the project moved forward changes were proposed. The changes are to the rear of the building (door moved to other side of porch and a bay window added). The Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission (HP&DRC) discussed the windows and noted the applicant may want one-over-one, double hung windows versus casement windows.  It was clarified that the property is located at 29 Harbor Road though the photographs are tagged “31 Harbor Rd.”. The carriage house is located at 33 Harbor Road.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Reg Gignoux returned to the Planning Commission.

 

Dan Senecal-Albrecht appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dan Senecal-Albrecht showed the interpretive panel for the Lake Champlain Byway which runs from Charlotte through Milton and Colchester to Grand Isle. The proposed panel is 24” x36” in size and provides a history of the settlement of Shelburne.  The text and layout was a joint effort of committees, town staff, and townspeople.  The Shelburne HP&DRC determined that the green on Falls Road would be the most appropriate location for the panel. The panel will be installed away from the sidewalk on a single pedestal at a 45 degree angle so children can reach and read it.  The panel will be made of high pressure half inch thick laminate.  The template showing the lake will be consistent with over the 100 panels installed as part of the Lake Champlain Basin Program.  A one foot square concrete pad will be the base for the pedestal.  The town will own and maintain the panel.  Once all 32 panels have been approved by the municipalities, the state will begin installation to be complete by May/June as a target. Additional panels will be located at the Shelburne boat launch and Shelburne Bay Park. Rick Peterson asked if the panels will be updated as amenities (bike path) are completed in town. Dan Senecal-Albrecht stated if the changes to the panel are not extensive, they can be made, but typically this is only done when there is a significant modification that is necessary. Mr. Senecal-Albrecht noted two national scenic byway grants were secured by the state to be used for outreach to inform the public about byways and for signage to indicate other trails in the area. Some of the money can be used by towns for more panels or associated improvements.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/8/07.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Rick Peterson noted the applicant requested the application be continued until the March meeting.

 

Paul Bohne, Shelburne Town Manager, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bohne had no further comments to add to the staff report.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/22/06 for the meeting on 2/8/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Patrick O’Brien appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Patrick O’Brien reviewed potential changes to the site plan which may occur following further discussion with neighbors and town staff.  Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers conducted a test and found there would be less headlight impact (glare from headlights) on the Kessel house if the proposed road is moved 10 to 15 feet closer to the existing hedgerow.  Additionally, plantings of trees and shrubs will be done as needed. Presently, there are cedar and pine trees at a height of 8 to 10 feet. There will be plantings of fruit trees (apple trees) to attract wildlife. The intent is to have the forest grow to fill in the opening cut through the trees for the access road. Willow trees will be planted by the fire pond.  Ornamental shrubs such as dogwoods, winterberry, and pussy-willows will also be planted around the fire pond.  The pond will be maintained (cattails will not be allowed to become established and an aerator will be installed and used to decrease mosquito hatching).  On Lot #1 there will be additional plantings on the property line to provide a visual buffer for the Knapp house.  A total of 28 white cedars at least six feet high will be planted.  A complete landscape plan and schedule will be submitted, assured Mr. O’Brien.  Regarding building envelopes, the size of the building envelope on Lot A (the community recreation area) will be decreased. The building envelope on Lot #10 will be decreased in size. The side line buffer on Lot #9 will be increased by decreasing the size of the building envelope. There is a force main located between Lot #9 and Lot #8. The building envelope on Lot #11 has been adjusted. The front yard buffer has been increased on Lots #3, #4, and #5. The side yard buffer will be increased on Lots #4 and #5.  Lot #6 is fairly isolated and has several nice buildable areas so the building envelope is large. Rick Peterson noted the parcel under discussion is visible from the village and urged the applicant to be aware of opening up the lots for buildings so that lights from houses are not visible in the village. Patrick O’Brien agreed to investigate identifying two building envelope areas on Lots #6 and #7.

 

Mr. O’Brien reviewed the fire pond, referring to the memo from Craig Wooster, dated 1/8/07. The requirement that the pond be built to ISO standards or for a 50-year drought (Item 1(d) in memo) is causing problems for the engineers. The capacity of the pond is 150,000 gallons (three times what is required) excluding two feet for sludge and two feet for ice. Investigation into moving the pond farther from the Kessel house is being done by the engineers as well. The legal documents specify the pond edges are to be mowed and maintained. Exploration of ways to control mosquitoes continues.

 

Regarding the community recreation area (swingset, outdoor hockey rink, and such), there will be no lighting of the area. Also, the walking path has been eliminated from the plan, stated Mr. O’Brien.

 

Chairman Peterson asked about delineating the location of potential farm structures on Lot #13 (farmette). Patrick O’Brien stated the building envelope could be moved closer to the access road (Sugarwoods Drive) or located in the meadow.  There could be language saying approval by the Planning Commission is needed before any structures are built in the envelope. The architectural review board through the homeowners association will have some control on the look of the structure(s). Rick Peterson stated the Planning Commission can not regulate farm structures, but can control where buildings are located (i.e. setbacks).  Following further discussion there was agreement the homeowners association of the development should specify where the agricultural building envelope will be (i.e. proximity to the access road) and the architectural review board of the homeowners association will determine the design of the agricultural buildings.

  

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/8/07.  Dick Pierce asked about the width of the swath for the road.  Patrick O’Brien stated the cut will be as narrow as possible. The driveway locations on the site plan are only suggestions.  There will be a wider apron at the end of the driveway. The driveways will mimic those in Wildwood Estates.  Dean Pierce asked about a path connection between Irish Hill Road and Spear Street, such as a 10 foot wide easement on the north side of Lot #B and the Irish property then along the north side of Lot #13 to the corner and onto Irish Hill Road. Patrick O’Brien stated having a path through the agricultural property (farmette) and mixing people with an agricultural operation is not recommended. Also, the terrain is fairly steep. The residents of the development will most likely not want a path through their property. There is an issue with drainage of surface water from the Kessel property. The plan is to install a swale if necessary.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Herb Kessel submitted a letter from the Knapps per their request. Mr. Kessel expressed concern about storm water drainage on Lot #1. Mr. Kessel confirmed there is agreement with Mr. O’Brien regarding the installation of the tree barrier between the Kessel lot and Lot #1.There is a 26’drop in elevation between the high point of area and the Kessel house.  There is a drainage problem. The heavy clay soil cannot handle more water.  The engineer’s opinion may be that a swale is not needed, but a swale would help the drainage. Mr. Kessel asked the Planning Commission to direct Mr. O’Brien to work with him regarding a drainage swale. Mr. Kessel also asked if the road could turn to the right sooner so car headlights disappear from sight sooner. Having the pond moved farther to the west is good because there are natural underground springs to keep it filled and the pond would be farther away from the Kessel house /property.  Mr. Kessel asked that the deeds specify the pond be aerated to control mosquitos.

 

Jim Kleptz questioned how the pond can handle urban run off and act as a fire pond as well. Reg Gignoux  assured the engineers will address the issue.  Patrick O’Brien explained the outlets in the fire pond will be high enough so water remains in the pond to meet the requirements of a fire pond. Jim Kleptz stressed the pond will not be large enough to handle all the storm water run-off from the new development and serve as a fire pond. The design of the bio-retention facilities for each house in the development was reviewed. Mr. Kleptz spoke of the pollution in the lake and nearby rivers due to area developments, emphasizing problems are not being corrected. More houses will add to the problem regardless of designs by the engineers. Jim Kleptz again stated the pond can not serve two functions, storm water retention and a fire pond.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Patrick O’Brien appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Patrick O’Brien explained the request for permission to increase the number of units built this year so the sewer allocation for the development is not forfeited. If the current year sewer allocation is not used by October 12, 2007, it will be lost. In order to complete the project in three years (the timeframe of the sewer allocation), 23 units per year must be built.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/8/07. There was mention of the 45 units per year cap stated in the newly adopted Town Plan.  There are 60 units slated to be built in 2007, but 35 units are Wake Robin cottages which uses a different formula for sewer allocation.  In 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively there are 39 units, 35 units, and 32 units to be built.  There was lengthy discussion of the allowed number of units per year.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The Planning Commission reviewed legal documents relative to the Rivercrest subdivision. Attorney Bob Rushford pointed out edits to the documents submitted in 2004. The documents refer to covenants concerning the affordable housing units in the development.  Patrick O’Brien noted there is language citing ‘affordability in perpetuity’, and now that construction of the units has begun, there will be discussions with a third party to oversee the affordable units and maintain the ‘in perpetuity’ clause. Mr. O’Brien also noted Act 250 indicated the town can choose how to manage the open land (active or passive use of the land).  Rick Peterson suggested the town own the land, but provide an easement to The Nature Conservancy to manage it. There was further discussion of the management of the open space in the Rivercrest subdivision.  There was continued discussion of oversight of the affordable units in the development. The Planning Commission wants specific detail on the mechanism to ensure affordability in perpetuity. Bob Rushford stated documents were submitted at the time of the first approval. The documents under discussion are the same. The documents were submitted to the Town Attorney in December. It is not known why the Planning Commission has not as yet received the materials from the Town Attorney.  Patrick O’Brien pointed out the Town Attorney cited a project in South Burlington which identified an entity to oversee the affordable units in the development. The Town Attorney indicated identifying the overseeing entity is not necessary until the first unit is sold. The deed document is the ‘mechanism’ that specifies this point. Dean Pierce commented there is question of whether the Shelburne bylaws or state statute supersede with regard to affordable housing. Rick Peterson clarified the issue is who oversees the affordability of the units, and that the town is not precluded from negotiations. The town most likely does not want to be the entity overseeing the affordability issue. The Planning Commission felt the document from the South Burlington project is a conceptual framework.

 

Staff reported the applicant requested extension of the preliminary plan deadline.

 

Staff reported the Sinha project has been appealed. A settlement is likely to be forthcoming.

 

Copies were provided to the Planning Commission.

 

Staff reported the Beldock application relative to Shelburne Bay Senior Living was denied by the Zoning Board.

 

Staff reported a new proposal will be forthcoming for the mobile home park (possibly senior housing).

 

 

There was no deliberative session. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Dan Hassan, Gregg Beldock, Doug Moses, Rebecca Stearns, Steve Reynes, Dave Marshall, Jeff Nick, Nick Grimley, Bruce Beeken, Linda Paskiewicz, Dick Elkins, Chris Eling, Marge Sharp(Shelburne News).

1.                  Call to order

2.                  Approval of Minutes – February 8, 2007

3.                  PRD Sketch Plan Review (continuance) – Paul Handy Trust, Catherine Handy Trust, William Andrus / Bullrock Corp., 2522, 2538 & 2572 Shelburne Road (SUB07-02)

4.                  Discussion of proposed zoning changes, with focus on front yard setback requirement in mixed use zoning district

5.                  Other business, correspondence, and adjournment

 

Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.

Steve Reynes appeared on behalf of the application. Mr. Reynes confirmed that a request to continue the hearing has been made. The continuance would allow time for the applicant to review the Zoning Board’s decision regarding this project. The Zoning Board voted to deny the project after closing the hearing on February 5, 2007.  Planning Commissioners discussed appropriate dates for the continued hearing, recognizing the desirability of a date subsequent to the release of the Zoning Board’s written decision.  Planning staff speculated that the Zoning Board decision could be signed on March 12, 2007.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

Rick Peterson provided introductory comments. He recounted that a new Town Plan has been adopted, certain technical changes to the Zoning bylaw have been approved, and the Planning Commission has started a phase of considering more difficult changes (“heavy lifting”), including the front yard setback along Shelburne Road north of the village.  Currently, the setback for non residential uses in this area is determined by formula.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Dean Pierce, Town Planner, gave a Powerpoint presentation to provide background on for the discussion. As part of this presentation, he indicated that Shelburne Road is evolved from a “country road” prior to the 1960s to a commercial corridor with elements of strip development. Strip development is thought to have many negative impacts. According to survey results, residents support additional commercial development in the corridor but oppose large scale commercial development. The existing zoning regulations discourage strip development and attempt to preserve the transportation function of the highway.

 

The Town Planner also described the requirements of the existing zoning regulations, including lot size, frontage, coverage, parking, landscaping, and setback requirements.  Once clear impact of the setback requirement is: The larger a proposed structure (and related parking), the bigger the setback and more extensive the required green space. The setback requirement does not appear to correlate with allowable lot coverage (40 percent), however.  Lots proposed for extensive development in many cases would not be able to meet the required front yard setback requirement.  The effect of the setback requirement is to limit building sizes. 

 

The draft zoning changes developed by the Planning Commission would introduce new building design requirements in PUDs. The changes would also reduce lot size requirements, expand allowable uses, increase allowable lot coverage, but retain the setback requirement.  It should be noted that the new Town Plan contains additional language discouraging strip development and encouraging enhanced building design.

 

In concluding his remarks, Dean Pierce noted that alternative schemes for regulating development in the corridor could include form-based zoning, modifying how pre-existing non conformities are treated, and altering the setback requirement for PUDs.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Numerous public comments were offered, as summarized below:

 

Bruce Beeken- Noted the importance of flexibility and the importance of appropriate scale. He also noted various perspectives: people using Shelburne Road, people living along Shelburne Road, and wildlife in areas near the corridor.

 

Rick Peterson- Asked if the corridor should be segmented and different standards used in the segments. He also wondered how flexibility can be achieved while maintaining the integrity of the regulatory system.

 

Bruce Beeken- Asked if design review process should be used in the corridor. Expressed concern about ‘over-prescribing’ requirements.

 

Dave Marshall- Suggested that desire to locate parking behind buildings (expressed in Town Plan) conflicts with setback requirement. Also suggested that perhaps the corridor should be divided into two segments. Also commented on the relationship between lot coverage and stormwater regulations, which might apply on lots of over 2.5 acres with 1 acre of coverage.

 

Gregg Beldock- Described the setback formula as punitive and frustrating to redevelopment efforts.

 

Rick Peterson- Observed that perhaps the Redevelopment PUD concept created for the village could be applied to the corridor.

 

Dick Elkins- Asked if there is or might be a way to provide waivers.

 

Dave Marshall- Suggested that an setback based on an average might be considered; such an approach is used in other communities.

 

Jeff Nick- Suggested that incentives should be created to encourage developers to include specific features in their projects.

 

Reg Gignoux- Expressed reservation about using an average but expressed interest in incentives.

 

Gregg Beldock- More extensive landscaping could be required by the regulations.

 

Dick Elkins- Suggested that the regulations could establish a basic requirement, which might be adjusted for features such as placing parking behind buildings.  Indicated existing requirement is a ‘huge waste of space.’

 

Rick Peterson- Observed that perhaps the Planning Commission’s ability to provide waivers should be expanded through the use of specific ‘milestones,’ if additional green space provided, then reduced setback allowed.  Then asked: what about limits on building size?

 

Steve Reynes- Responded that building size limit works against certain uses such as congregate housing for elders. Perhaps larger buildings should be allowed if they can meet a larger setback.

 

Reg Gignoux- Noted that perhaps there could be a different setback requirement for large scale residential uses.

 

Gregg Beldock- Agreed that there could be a different setback requirement for large scale residential uses.

 

Dick Elkins- Commented on possible long term impact, as uses of structures change.

 

Rebecca Stearns- Commented that Planning Commission should have greater flexibility to modify regulations. Later she added that different rules should be applied in projects proposing adaptive reuse.

 

Steve Reynes- Agreed that system could be created to reduce setback requirements in exchange for additional green space, parking in rear, reduced traffic impact.

 

Gregg Beldock- Suggested that developers could be required to provide visual simulations of their projects as part of the development review process.

 

Bruce Beeken- Suggest that regulations shouldn’t automatically preclude projects such as the NRG systems building (in Hinesburg).

 

Reg Gignoux- Sees potential to tweak the formula or make it progressive (i.e, different requirements for different sized lots).

 

Bruce Beeken- Indicated that features such as energy self sufficiency and access to transit, could be considered in a system allowing reduced front yard setbacks.

 

Dave Marshall - suggested a “document search,” noting that this issue has probably been addressed in other communities around the country.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE

Rick Peterson recapped the discussion, indicating that one word he has heard frequently is ‘flexibility.’ The formula could be retained, but there should also be ways to address properties and projects that ‘don’t fit the mold’ or provide for relaxed requirements when certain objectives are met. 

 

Reg Gignoux sought opinion regarding reduced setbacks to provide improved access to transit service.  Mr. Gignoux and Rick Peterson indicated, and audience members appeared to agree, that transit services should go to where people are, as opposed to moving people closer to where transit is available.

 

SCHEDULE

The Planning Commission indicated that discussion of the setback issue and other zoning changes would continue. Audience members were encouraged to provide additional input (possibly in writing).  The next discussion of zoning changes will take place in two weeks. The focus of the discussion will be lighting.

 

Dean Pierce drew attention to recent correspondence, including: transmittal of the Selectboard’s agenda for February 27, 2007 (which includes discussion of creating a Development Review Board); materials for presentation on affordable housing in Williston on February 23, 2007; and an email from staff at the Chittenden County Transportation Authority regarding zoning changes.  Staff also provided updates on the status of the Albert Appeal (Rice Woods project), which is scheduled for oral arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court.

 

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m.