MEMBERS PRESENT:       Reg Gignoux, Claude LaPierre, Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Peter Gibbs.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Susan O’Brien, Maureen O’Brien, George O’Brien, Kate O’Brien,  Jeff Towne, Kary Towne, Sharon Hickey, Rose Garritano, Peter Garritano, Dick Elkins, Calista Hollyer.

Work Session: Proposed Zoning Changes

Reg Gignoux, Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Susan McFeeters, President of the Condominium Association, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. McFeeters stated the garage doors are fine as they are and the residents do not desire a change.  The Design Review Committee agreed with this assessment.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on this application, dated 3/8/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

George O’Brien read a statement in support of the proposal, noting the O’Brien family has been residents of Shelburne since 1931, operating a dairy farm. Due to financial constraints, the family decided to sell some of the land for development, but not in many small lots. The family wanted a plan that treats the land with far greater kindness and tenderness than dairy farming did.   The on-site wetlands should be considered an asset.  In addition to a storm water plan, the lots sited are such to retain the rural characteristic of the neighborhood. There are open fields on the north and south sides of Cheesefactory Road which can be protected if desired in perpetuity. The plan promotes private ownership of land as best to keep the land open and productive.  The plan proposes building height restrictions and restriction on the location of buildings to protect views.  The O’Brien family plans to remain in the neighborhood. Mr. O’Brien spoke of changes in the area not anticipated in 1931, such as houses built, torn down and new buildings put up.  Mr. O’Brien spoke of the cycle of change being constant.  The O’Brien family feels the plan meets the highest and best use of land as allowed by law and meets the current needs of humans.

 

Tony Stout summarized how the plan evolved with 14 lots planned on the west end of property. There will be a loop road with a turnaround.  Five lots will be in the meadow on the ridge, west of Dorset Street. Three lots are planned on the east side of Dorset Street, one south of Cheesefactory Road and two lots to the north. These remaining three lots will have the driveways intersecting Cheesefactory Road. A community mound system will serve the lots on the west end.  A replacement system is planned on Lot #9, but the intent is not to have to use it, meaning doing whatever is necessary to keep the primary system functioning.  A community system is also planned on lots #16 and #17, with a replacement system on lots #15 and #16.  Lots #20-#22 will have community system on Lot #22 with the replacement system farther north on the same lot. No problems are expected in obtaining permits from the State of Vermont. An advanced treatment filter system will be used. The Homeowners Association will maintain the wastewater systems.  Each house will have a drilled bedrock well located a distance of 200’ apart from the next well. Good water capacity is located on the property.  The large aquifer will produce an adequate water supply.  The development will access approximately four percent of the water flowing through the aquifer. Regarding common land in the development, there are three types of regulated open space to meet the Planned Residential Development (PRD) requirements, including ‘open natural area’ where no cutting is allowed (this is mostly woods), ‘open space natural’ where trees can be cut and dropped in place to allow in light and for the views, and ‘open space agricultural’ where trees can be cut/removed and land used for agricultural purposes (i.e. the land is open). The Town of Shelburne will be given the right to do cutting on the open space agricultural areas to ensure the land remains open over time. There are also limited cutting areas between the proposed houses to maintain a wooded buffer, stated Mr. Stout. To ensure the mature Hemlock forest canopy will remain intact on Lot #9 no more than two large trees can be cut down. The intent is to keep the lot wooded. There will be cutting easements (75’ wide) on Lots #10-#14 to maintain views of the mountains. The trees can be cut once they reach a height of 40’to 50’. Peter Gibbs asked about lots without restrictions.  Mr. Stout replied the community septic mound will be cleared of trees and areas without restrictions will be developed.

 

An updated density analysis was provided to the Planning Commission.  The revised map shows the realistic location of the road and crossing of the wetlands. On an acreage basis, the subdivision would be allowed 28 lots, but when the wetlands and steep slopes of the land are considered, only 22 lots can be created.  Tony Stout mentioned the views from various points on the property. A visual analysis shows that the impact of views by houses set close to the road can be mitigated by height restrictions not exceeding 25 feet including a small barn.  Any variance to the building envelopes identified on the plan would require an amendment of the site plan (the individual property owner would have to seek the amendment before the Planning Commission).

 

Tony Stout reviewed the agricultural soils on the property, including prime farm land that is currently actively farmed. There are 69 acres of which 18 acres are not protected by the open space plan. There are 122 acres of primarily agricultural soils (wetlands, wooded, and such) and 30.1 acres are not protected. The impact of the development is held to a quarter of the farm land.

 

Mr. Stout referred to the comments submitted by the town’s consulting engineer, Phelps Engineering, which have been or will be addressed. The Planning Commission received a copy of the applicant’s response to the town engineer’s comments.  There is agreement the culvert connecting the storm basins on either side of the road can be dipped if desired, well shields on Lots #9, #10, and #11 need to be refined, there are maintenance requirements in the deed covenants, weighted average flow can be provided (collective force mains will be used which is effectively one large pressurized pipe), calculations for the mound systems hydraulic capacity are done and will be provided, and the test pits for the community system for Lots #15, #16, and #17 will be shown on the site plan.

 

Comments from the Shelburne Fire Chief were addressed.  The fire pond will be the Wardwell pond with a dry hydrant and extended pipe to the road.  The hydrant line will be six inches in diameter and there will be 300’ of pipe running downhill. If the calculations indicate a need for an eight inch pipe, then it will be installed.  Regarding the roadway, there will be a 90’ diameter loop at the end of road for the first fourteen lots and a “T” turnaround on Lot #13 to accommodate a fire truck.  Lot #6 will have a short driveway close to the road.  The driveways for Lot #22 and Lot #5 may have a T-turnaround added. The community road for Lots #15-#19 has a turnaround already.  The shared driveway for Lots #20 and #21 is short and there are three hydrants nearby to serve lots #15-#22.  Municipal water service to the development has not been investigated and there is no plan to do so. Concerning the 18’ width of the access road, the width is adequate for two cars to pass and for a snowplow to plow the road.

 

Concerning affordable housing, the applicant offered cash in lieu to building affordable housing in the development. The cash could be applied to affordable housing in the village area closer to public transportation and other services. The amount of $2,000 per lot payable when the 15^th lot is sold is the offer. Regarding paths, the applicant proposed a footpath in area A through the common land, and to facilitate future extension of the bike lane from South Burlington to Shelburne, the applicant is willing to grant the town a one-rod wide (16.5 feet) trail easement outside the town road right-of-way.  Regarding the bike lane on Dorset Street and Barstow Road, Maureen O’Brien said she contacted the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee and the Shelburne Paths Committee to discuss easements.  The Chairperson of the Paths Committee indicated conversation should be directed to Town Planner and the Planning Commission.  The Paths Committee wants an on-lane bike lane on both sides of the road from South Burlington to Barstow Road and Barstow Road to Spear Street. There is sufficient right-of-way so easements from private property owners are not necessary.  The cost of a five or six foot wide bike path (four feet at a minimum) is $188 per foot. The proposed development will generate recreation impact fees, noted Ms. O’Brien, and an easement is being offered for an off-road path through the property. Dean Pierce noted the bike path cost includes a bridge. Ms. O’Brien stressed the cost is prohibitive for them. Dean Pierce explained the town has a program that involves widening roads such as Spear Street so the Paths Committee advocates a connection to Spear Street.

 

Tony Stout reviewed the ecological analysis which shows clay plain forest large old trees, and some rare plants, a Hemlock grove, and ledge. Within the woods are large “legacy trees” which are important seed sources for the continuing succession of the old-field pine forest. There are a couple of rare species including “loose sedge” and “rough avens”. The hemlock grove, ledges, and wet clay plain were mentioned. Reg Gignoux asked how the no cutting area will be maintained relative to thinning or downed trees.  Tony Stout said the intention is for the area to remain natural.  If there is a safety issue such as a tree going to fall imminently, then the tree can be cut. The area is not managed forest land.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Panning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/8/07.  Dean Pierce mentioned sidewalks, noting the requirement for the bike path by the Shelburne Path Committee may be comparable.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the total number of acres of open land. Tony Stout replied there are 107 acres in total. Concerning the larger lots east of Dorset Street, Reg Gignoux asked about future re-subdivision.  Tony Stout replied a provision in the deed covenants allow further subdivision of Lots #20 and #22 through the community planning process and not before 10 years. Dean Pierce questioned the calculation of the development potential of the parcel in light of the language in the Town Plan.  Dean Pierce will review the numbers relative to the regulations.  Peter Gibbs asked about retaining additional building rights on Lots #20 and #21. Tony Stout reviewed the Open Space language which says the lots may be further subdivided after the community process and if the Town determines subdivision or development is in the public’s interest. George O’Brien stated “in perpetuity” depends on what the residents of Shelburne desire at the time the matter is brought forth.  Residents will decide if the current use is not appropriate or proper.  Mr. O’Brien felt the issue of in perpetuity should not be decided by the developer; town residents should decide what should be done with town property.

 

Kay Kraushaar observed the west side of the development is clustered housing and the east side is three conventional lots giving the appearance of two separate types of development. It was suggested the three lots be added to the cluster development.  Tony Stout explained George O’Brien feels if the land east of Dorset Street is owned by someone not living on the land it is more likely the land will be allowed to become fallow and will not remain open.  If someone lives on the land they will take responsibility for the land.  Kay Kraushaar mentioned open space can be kept open with an open space agreement.  There is no more insurance an individual living on the site will maintain it. There was further discussion of clustering the houses and maintaining the open space. Mr. O’Brien stated that from a productive farmer perspective, land that is taxable is kept usable for productive purposes.  Tony Stout added the person using the agricultural lands will likely want to live on the land.  George O’Brien said he talked to two farmers working the land now and they expressed concern about open land being preserved and not being used. The landowner will have to pay someone to keep the land open. Reg Gignoux asked what the mechanism is that calls a person to task if they do not use the land for agricultural purposes. Tony Stout replied the landowner will be paying taxes on the entire parcel and they will have to pay to keep the land open if they do not do it themselves.  The town will have the right to cut the trees on the property and potentially charge the cost to the property owner.

 

Hilda White supports clustering the houses.  The driveway for the lot in the southwest corner of the property is 300 feet long.  Ms. White felt someone could farm the land and live across the road.

 

Tucker Holland concurred with the statements about clustering the houses. Mr. Holland mentioned the lot on the north side of Cheesefactory Road and the proximity of the building lot on the adjacent lot could come into conflict with farming activities.

 

Reg Gignoux expressed concern about the mechanism for protecting the intended agricultural use of the land.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Peter Garritano, neighbor, expressed concerns that a proposed house location will severely impact the view from his home. There was also concern about headlights impacting the new house. Mr. Garritano suggested the house be located closer to the hedgerow so it is somewhat hidden. Tony Stout pointed out the house is below the horizon line so car headlights will not likely be a problem. Also, the house is set back from the road.

 

Rose Garritano, neighbor, suggested lots of trees be planted to conceal the house. Ms. Garritano expressed concern about light pollution from the development and the impact on the viewscape. Regarding the notion of the farm and farm buildings, there is less control on the building size/height. Tony Stout stated deed covenants control the development of the area and height of buildings. There is also a defined building envelope.  Anything outside of the covenants will require an amendment to the site plan which must be reviewed and granted by the Planning Commission.  Dean Pierce mentioned the town cannot enforce covenants.  Rose Garritano expressed concern about well capacity, noting their well has low yield for their horse farm operation. Additional comments included the need for screening east of Dorset Street, bike lanes on Barstow Road which is narrow, and the suggestion for a 3-way stop at the end of Barstow Road onto Spear Street.

 

            Carlista Hollyer, neighbor on the corner of Barstow Road and Dorset Street, asked bout the amount of property for each lot behind her house.  Tony Stout replied the lots sizes are respectively 1.5 acres, 1.8 acres, 2 acres, 2.1 acres and 2.5 acres with 8.5 acres of common land.  George O’Brien added a farmer expects to continue to use the eight acres for farming if it is financially feasible for him.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Ms. Armstrong submitted clarification of the comments she made at the 1/25/07 Planning Commission meeting and requested the following be included in the record:

1.      The four bedroom mound system is being stretched to capacity by these numerous additions to its capacity.

2.      The run off due to tons of added fill will impact my property due to the funnel effect of the changes made to the property. Surface water from the barn roof run off coupled with topography changes from filling the property will directly impact my neighboring property!!

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

 

Following the regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a work session to discuss proposed zoning changes.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Bernie Gagnon, Josie Leavitt, Terry Kennaugh, Chris Synder, Dick Elkins, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

Reg Gignoux, Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

Dean Pierce moderated the election of the chairperson, and called for nominations.

 

Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of chairperson.

 

Chris Snyder appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Snyder stated Snyder Rivercrest, LLC purchased 41 townhouses from the Forest Park Realty (O’Brien Brothers) development. An amendment to the final plan is requested to allow decks and air conditioning units to extend beyond the building envelope. The building structure will not be extended. The extension is ten feet and the width of the unit.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/22/07. Dean Pierce stated lot coverage can be increased as part of a PRD.  The requested increase conforms to the bylaws.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Bernie Gagnon, Director of Public Works for Shelburne, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bernie Gagnon stated negotiations are continuing concerning an easement with the Waldorf School to better reflect how traffic runs through the area.  The applicant is requesting approval of an alternate site plan and building location contingent upon successful negotiation of the easement with the Waldorf School. Bernie Gagnon showed the Planning Commission the location of the old salt shed and the new location on the site plan. The new location of the salt shed will be slightly farther from the stream.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/22/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Josie Leavitt, Flying Pig Bookstore, asked if there is any flexibility from current regulations concerning sign boards being up for a total of 30 days per year.  Flying Pig Bookstore holds more than 30 events during the year. Most of the events are free to the public and serve to keep people in the village area. Sign boards are very effective in announcing events. The reasons why the Town originally started regulating temporary signs were discussed. Reg Gignoux noted shopkeepers in town typically self-police the posting of sign boards and this has worked well thus far. The Zoning Administrator takes action only if there is a complaint.  Dean Pierce noted the Planning Commission received a summary of suggested adjustments to the sign section of the bylaws (suggestions by the Planning Commission) related to allowing one free sign (sidewalk sign) per establishment.  Following further discussion there was consensus that different allowances should be made for different districts, including the Village Center and the Mixed Use districts, and that it would be desirable to accommodate off premise signs for agricultural businesses, however, doing so legally could be challenging.

The Planning Commission reviewed proposed zoning changes related to lighting. Terry Kennaugh, member of the Lighting Committee established by the Planning Commission, gave a presentation on lighting. Light pollution and negative impacts to the community were defined. Impacts include loss of community, loss of safety and security, damage to human health, energy waste, air and water pollution, and disruption of nature. Mr. Kennaugh also described human responses to lighting and glare. Numerous examples were shown of poor lighting and its prevalence as well as examples of good lighting, desirable fixture types, and ways undesirable fixture type installations can be retrofitted for improvement.  The importance of preserving the darkness of the night sky was stressed. Discussion followed with numerous questions regarding lighting in Shelburne, including how lighting regulations might be improved, the need for education about lighting impacts, and the economic implications of poor lighting.  The consensus of the Planning Commission was to support the draft lighting revisions prepared by the Lighting Committee. Terry Kennaugh suggested residents be given the opportunity to comment on the revisions. It was agreed that after the additional changes are made the draft should be available on the Town’s website. Availability of the draft will be publicized and comments will be solicited.

There was discussion of proposed zoning changes pertaining to setbacks on Shelburne Road. Slides illustrating various setback formulas were shown. The slides demonstrated how the existing setback requirement, in general, is not consistent with lot coverage allowances in the bylaws.  Alternative setback requirements under discussion reduce the inconsistency, however, some of the alternative formulas are relatively complicated. The Planning Commission may prefer a more straightforward solution to the problem. Mr. Pierce noted one approach is presented in the draft text distributed to Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Under the approach, applicants would be allowed to use a less demanding setback formula in exchange for landscaping, reductions in the amount of parking in front of buildings, and, in certain situations, good building design.  Variations on the approach are presented in the spreadsheet distributed in the mailing. Mr. Pierce also reported draft text includes language modeled after the Redevelopment PUD provisions applicable to the village zoning district. Extensive discussion followed. Planning Commissioners expressed support for reduced setback requirements in exchange for landscaping, alternative parking, and good design. Support was also indicated for including the Redevelopment PUD language in the Mixed Use zone, but the level of additional development that should be allowed was questioned. Hilda White emphasized the importance of having a setback requirement that results in varied rather than uniform setbacks.  Tucker Holland suggested that as an alternative setback credits might be coupled with a fixed setback distance rather than a setback based on a formula. Tucker Holland also suggested if a formula is retained, the formula should be based on lot coverage rather than building coverage.  Dean Pierce summarized the Planning Commission’s recommendations regarding the setback issue, reiterated points made on the use of the Redevelopment PUD provisions, the desire for variable setbacks, and use of a fixed setback. Discussion will continue at the next work session.

Dean Pierce reported Tony Stout requested the Planning Commission hold a deliberative session to discuss the George O’Brien/Helen O’Brien Family Trust project.  Follow brief discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to the request. Deliberative session to discuss the O’Brien project will be held immediately following adjournment of the regular meeting.

A work session on the zoning bylaws was scheduled for April 5, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. Signage and setbacks on Route 7 will be discussed.

 

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