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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Rad  Romeyn, Maureen O’Brien, Beckey Ramsey, George O’Brien, Kathleen O’Brien,  Karolyn Towne, Susan O’Brien, Sharon Hickey, Peter Garritano, Rosemarie Garritano, Tony Stout, Steven Antinozzi, Gwen Webster, Fred  Schmidt, Steve Vock, Marc Gamble, Chris Galipian, David Conard, Beth Wardwell, Larry Williams,  Ashley Matthews (Burlington Free Press), Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

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

 

MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to approve the 4/26/07 minutes with the following correction:

 Larry Williams appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Larry Williams reiterated the request for a waiver of seven parking spaces or 37% of the parking for the condominium buildings. There will be three buildings allowing area for green space rather than one large unit. There is available existing parking in the vicinity (train station, along Church Street, Falls Road, and at Town Hall). Parking requirements in the code do not anticipate a mixed use project. With a mixed use project there is less conflict for parking since an office space will use the parking during the day while a restaurant will use the parking spaces at night. The Forum on Sprawl has endorsed the project and endorses the waiver as requested. Signs are needed to direct people to available public parking. The Planning Commission will be receiving a letter from the Forum on Sprawl. Mr. Williams noted if the access into the mobile home park can be reconfigured and the right-of-way renegotiated, there will be seven additional parking spaces available.  This matter should be discussed by the Planning Commission and the mobile home park. Other suggested solutions for parking such as purchasing land for parking is not an option though the parking lot to the north of Dr. Fink’s office may be available for special events provided a certificate of insurance is issued to the property owner, stated Mr. Williams.  Regarding the comments from the Fire Chief, these will be addressed and a finding relative to the existing hotel building not being an historically significant building will be drafted.  The motel is not listed on the National Historic Register. The Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC) signed off on the building not being ‘contributing’ by acceptance of the building being torn down and endorsement of the new proposal as presented.  The original building may have been unique in its construction, but it was not significant in its construction and the existing building is not compatible with surrounding buildings, Mr. Williams said.

 

Hilda White spoke in support of seeking additional parking off-site (i.e. Dr. Fink property). Peter Gibbs stated people will have to be directed toward the parking by Dr. Fink as well as to other available public parking so the spaces for the condominiums are not used. Mr. Williams noted the parking for the condominiums is obvious (driveways) and there will be signs. The fire lane will be delineated with signage and cars will be towed immediately if parked in the fire lane. Mr. Williams added the tenants in the Inn are not contemplating any special events in particular. When the restaurant is expecting busy times, employees are instructed to park off-site. Kay Kraushaar asked if it is the town’s responsibility to post signs to direct people to public parking. Dean Pierce noted there has been discussion of way finding signs that also direct people to available parking.  There is an RFP out for way finding signs for a specified section of town.  Signs in the state right-of-way must follow federal and state regulations.

 

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/10/07. Dean Pierce mentioned the intensity of the proposed lighting has not changed though the height of the lighting has changed. The lights will be 70 watt metal halide yielding greater footcandles when placed on bollards versus poles. It must be determined if the lighting standards are met. Larry Williams assured lighting standard will be met as required. Photometric information was not available at the time the lighting plan was submitted. Reg Gignoux stressed photometric information is necessary to ensure Shelburne’s lighting standards are met.

 

Rad Romeyn, Pond Road, spoke in support of the parking layout as proposed. The condominiums are part of a mixed use project and will be purchased by the buyer due to the location. Clearly marking the designated/separated parking for the condominium units will work. Mr. Romeyn urged the Planning Commission to approve the project as proposed without creating more parking.

 

Gwen Webster, resident, pointed out there is no parking provision proposed for guests visiting the condominiums. Also, public parking is not delineated at the train station or on Church Street. There is question as to whether the Falls Road village streetscape will gain or lose parking. (Dean Pierce will research the matter.) Ms. Webster also questioned the fairness of one project consuming available overflow parking without any other business having the same opportunity. Presently when there are village events with many attendees there is no place to park. People end up parking in private driveways. Mr. Williams recalled when the Pump House Restaurant was operating there were 48 seats with only 8 parking spaces (less than half the parking that was required). Ms. Webster corrected the number of seats to 32. There was further discussion of available parking and the number of seats at the existing restaurant (originally approved for 80 seats/ 40 parking spaces). Mr. Williams clarified there is not a breakdown in the waiver request for the restaurant.

 

Fred Schmidt, resident, stated the town should know the number of available public parking spaces. Also, a tourist user friendly map of the town would be helpful. People want to come to Shelburne and walk around, but they do not know where to park. Mr. Schmidt felt the lack of direction to public parking areas should not delay projects.  Reg Gignoux commented he has never had difficulty finding parking in Shelburne.  Events such as school plays and graduations do use parking spaces, but mainly on Harbor Road by the school. The town does not need to create more asphalt for parking. People will find a place to park on the side of the road.  The developer is most at risk because his market will not purchase the condominium units if there are parking concerns, observed Mr. Gignoux.

 

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

 

 

MOTION by Peter Gibbs, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve amendment of the PUD Site Plan submitted by Catamount/HSI/Shelburne, LLC, for property at 5247 Shelburne Road and 11 Falls Road consistent with the site plan dated April 9, 2007 and subject to the following conditions:

 

Tucker Holland left the meeting.

 

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application. Only four members of the Planning Commission were present. Discussion occurred about postponing the hearing until the full board is present.  The applicant decided to present information with the understanding the application may be continued.

 

Tony Stout provided a summary of his response to staff/committee comments. There have been no changes to the site plan (same layout). There is a difference of opinion in the calculation of density (22 lots as calculated by the applicant versus 21 lots as calculated by Dean Pierce). Regarding open space, all designated open space on all areas will be such in perpetuity (this will be stated in the covenants). The best habitat is located in the northeast quadrant ledges; this is considered open space in the plan and will be protected. There will be an open space agreement with the Town of Shelburne rather than a third party. The Town will be the enforcer of the covenants for open space which includes the open space natural area and the open space agricultural area.

 

There was lengthy discussion of development on Lot #22. Mr. Stout noted the Town Plan does not prohibit development in the foreground of a view. On Lot #22 there will be a specific building envelope and a 25’ height restriction so the ridge of the house is below the horizontal plane.  The building envelope for a barn will be eliminated. A barn will have to be built within the house building envelope. The O’Brien family feels strongly someone should be living on the land to keep it open. The deed will require that the woody vegetation be cleared from the field. It is felt the view can be protected without the sole focus being on Lot #22. A member of the O’Brien family wants to build and live on Lot #22, stated Mr. Stout. Becky Ramsey, the 10^th of the 11 O’Brien children, said her family has lived on the land for the past 76 years and it was her mother’s dream to build a house on the land now designated as Lot #22. For the past 15 years, the family realized the dream would not come true for their mother. The family still wants to build on the land in their mother’s memory. The family has turned away developers interested in the land. The proposal for the land is good and respectful to the town and the land, continued Ms. Ramsey. A family member will continue to live on the land. Mr. Stout mentioned the family’s willingness to make any necessary changes on Lots 20 and 21 to allow a house site on Lot #22.

 

Regarding the bike lane, the cost for a four foot wide paved bike lane on both sides of Barstow Road at a cost of $75 per foot will total $562,000. This breaks down to $25,000 per lot or $50,000 per family member. The cost is significant, stated Mr. Stout. Also, community planning for bike lanes in the area was not uncovered. The regional plan shows a bike lane on Spear Street. South Burlington has an off road bike trail. There appears to be a bit of a disconnect. Mr. Stout pointed out Barstow Road will be widened by eight feet with a bike lane which could result in increased vehicular speeds. An off road bike path may be a better solution. Shelburne collects recreational impact fees, but the bike lane requirement is a very large burden on the O’Brien family. A four foot wide concrete sidewalk in the village for pedestrians costs $25/foot. In addition to a bike lane, the O’Briens will pay a premium for the roads to make the development a PRD (a more expensive way to develop). Regarding the road width, as proposed two cars can pass each other and two fire trucks can pass each other carefully. The suggested 18’ wide road with shoulders is keeping with the rural character of the area. There will be a pullout by the hydrant and a turnaround at the end of the road. With regard to the water supply, there are confusing messages from the Town about extending the water main from South Burlington, but not wanting to extend municipal water service to the area. There are places to fill the pumper fire trucks. Dry hydrants will be installed as required. George O’Brien thanked Beth Wardwell for the existing hydrant by her house which allows water to be available to other houses in the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Stout reported the state wetlands division and Corps. of Engineers finds the development plan acceptable. Approval documentation will be submitted to the town when it is received.

 

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/10/07. Dean Pierce stated the zoning regulations indicate PRD density is based on lots developed in strict conformance to the regulations, and that is how the number of lots was calculated by staff. Also, the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee wants to have the land protected by involvement of a third party. The town could be a default 3^rd party.  Regarding the cost of the bike lane versus a concrete sidewalk, the cost of $25/foot needs to be verified. Regarding the road width, the Public Works Director felt a wider road would be plowed wider than a narrow road making it easier for emergency vehicle access in winter.

 

Kay Kraushaar commented on the foreground leading to the middle and background of a lot. The effort on Lot #22 to find the best location within the open space is recognized, but the lot is open space within a greater parcel. Building envelopes should avoid open fields per the regulations. Lot #22 is being segmented and not treated as an open space piece. Tony Stout stated language from the prior town plan was referenced on foreground being a window to the mid and far ground. It is true the house will be visible, but the family wants to protect the land and keep it open so there is a view. This will not happen if no one is living on the land. A family member wants to live on the parcel.

 

Beth Wardwell, neighbor, spoke in support of the superb and respectful proposal by the O’Brien family to maintain the rural character of the land. The development is an investment for their future.

 

Fred Schmidt, resident and member of the Paths Committee, stated the Shelburne Paths Committee met with the O’Brien family in an advisory capacity only. No recommendations of cost per foot for any paths were made. Different alternatives for paths, costs, funding mechanisms, and grants were explored. The Town’s path plan does encourage more integrative planning across the community.

 

Steven Antinozzi, resident and member of the Paths Commitee, spoke of regional planning for paths and noted the six-year capital plan adopted by the Selectboard endorses paths on the shoulders of Spear Street and Irish Hill Road. This is a critical link. Regarding safety, bike lanes narrow the travel surface of the road and gives traffic a predictable flow.

 

Marge Sharp, Shelburne News, asked about large power lines being near the proposed houses.  Mr. Stout stated the houses will be set back from the line(s).

 

Rose Garritano, neighbor, expressed concern about a possible building on Lot #22, and asked about building a house next to the school house (Kate’s house). Ms. Garritano asked which family member might live on Lot #22 and what type of farming operation is anticipated. George O’Brien stated the decision of who will live on the land has not been made as yet. Regardless, the house will suit the area and not change the character of the area.  The sensitivity put into the application by the O’Brien family was acknowledged. Peter Garritano agreed a resident of 76 years should have more say about the outcome of the land than others who have not lived in the area as long. Mr. Garritano mentioned the rendering of the house on Lot #22, noting the house will become more prominent in the view after passing by the telephone poles. There was further discussion of the open space. One suggestion included having the homeowners association maintain the open space and scenic landscape.  Mr. Stout noted the difficulty and perpetual enforcement issue of having residents who live far from the open space maintain the area.  There was mention of the town enforcing the open space plan or using money from the Open Space Fund to purchase land the town as a whole wants to remain open/undeveloped. Kay Kraushaar reiterated recognizing how important the view is reinforces not putting a house in the middle of Lot #22. George O’Brien stated the house will be on the hedge row out of the open field. Ms. Kraushaar pointed out the house may not be in the geographic middle of the lot, but it is in the middle of the view corridor.  Reg Gignoux noted the building envelope is on the highest point of the lot which is not out of character with the area.  Tony Stout stressed the ridge of the building is below the view. The house will be seen, but the view is visible above the house.

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

Steve Vock and David Conard appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Vock reviewed the proposed subdivision of 152 acres into six lots. There are two existing foundations for houses on two lots so actually only four additional lots are being created. There could possibly be up to 15 units on the parcel, but the property owner only wants six lots. Most of the infrastructure is already in place so there will be minimal disturbance of the site. There will be a 150’ perimeter setback. The fields fronting Harbor Road are restricted for buildings. Fences to manage the pasture land are allowed, but no structures to divide up the field into sections.  Agricultural structures are allowed in the distant fields.  There is a 75’ setback beyond the distant fields line to establish the building envelopes. The development will not be visible except for some level of the agricultural buildings by the agricultural fields.  Lot #3 was created so the existing quarry is located all on one lot. Lot #3 can be reconfigured to meet frontage requirements.

 

Reg Gignoux mentioned the seasonal streambeds along Harbor Road and potential impact on the proposed development.

 

Kay Kraushaar questioned how an agricultural operation will work on three separately owned meadows. David Conard stated the details of pasture rotation have not been worked out as yet. It is possible an independent third party could use the three fields. There may be a provision for the homeowners to contract with someone or maintain the fields in a particular way themselves. The intent is to keep the fields free of structures. Even the fences will be transparent to the view.  Ms. Kraushaar suggested the fields be treated as a single lot. Mr. Gignoux commented an outside user of the land would likely not have fence divisions. With the fencing there is concern about creating a “Colorado ranchette”. There are view corridors that should be preserved. There was discussion of potential buyers not being interested in agricultural operations on the property. Steve Vock pointed out only four percent of the entire parcel will be impacted by development and the structures will be out of sight. There will be very little change as to what is there today.

 

There was discussion of the emergency access road on Lot #6 (which is also the road used today to access the quarry). The emergency access will be eliminated from the proposal. The hydrant will be located at the entrance way to the development. The owner of Lot #6 can decide what to do with the roadway. The roadway could become a driveway for the lot. Residents of the other lots will not be able to the use roadway. Presently the town stock piles stone and other material on the property by the quarry so it is good to have an access road to avoid going through the development. At some point it is likely the access to the quarry will be closed (i.e. once the other five lots are developed). The road does interconnect through the parcel now, but that function will not remain if the subdivision is approved, stated Mr. Vock.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about a wildlife inventory. Steve Vock stated evaluations appropriate for the development will be done. It was noted there are deer yards on the property, and the fence appears to be trapping the deer inside. Ms. Kraushaar felt he fencing is not compatible with the surrounding area.

 

Reg Gignoux summarized outstanding issues, including agricultural use of the land, preservation of lake views, fences, and wildlife. There was mention of a tree inventory. Mr. Vock felt it excessive to require an inventory for the proposal. There was discussion of tree cutting.  Mr. Conard stated limiting cutting in the perimeter setbacks to the removal of dead/diseased trees would likely be acceptable to the property owner. Some language to prevent clear cutting of swaths of land through the trees is needed.

 

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/10/07. Dean Pierce suggested the building envelopes be defined.

 

None.

 

 

Postponed until the full membership is present.

 

Dean Pierce reported the Selectboard voted in favor of establishing a DRB in Shelburne.

 

Dean Pierce reported a representative from South Burlington will discuss the proposed development on Dorset Street with the Planning Commission on 5/24/07 at 7 p.m.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.