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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            John Wakefield, Staige Davis , David Conard, Howard Seaver, Michael Dugan, Trey Pecor, Margaret Murphy, Ernie Goodrich, Lori Dubois, Janet Dubois, Richard Dubois, Steve Vock, Glenn Johnson, Barbara Johnson, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

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

·        Others Present – correct the spelling of Chris Calipeau;

·        Page 2, O’Brien, Applicant Comments, 1^st paragraph, 7^th sentence – change “sell” to “transfer” with regard to the open space corridor;

·        Page 4, Cabot, Applicant Comments, 1^st paragraph, 2^nd sentence – correct the spelling of “known”; and in the 2^nd paragraph, 3^rd sentence – change “...and the edge of...” to “...and both edges of the access road”; and in the 2^nd paragraph, 7^th sentence – clarify to read: “There was discussion of the northern boundary moved to the south...” relative to the building envelope on Lot #1;

·        Page 6, Sokolowski, Deliberation/Decision, Motion, Approval Condition #2 - change “two/four signs” to “four signs”;

·        Page 7, Dubrul, Applicant Comments, 2^nd paragraph – change “(an inventory)” to “(in inventory)”;

·        Page 8, Dubrul, Deliberation/Decision, Motion, Approval Condition #1 - delete “and submitted to staff for review”, and in Approval Condition #2 - delete “effective on the date of approval” and clarify the site lighting shall be modified to comply with town lighting standards contained in the Shelburne zoning bylaws at the time of construction: “….building shall be modified to comply with lighting standards contained in the Shelburne Zoning bylaws.”

 

·        Page 2, Stella Shoes, Staff Report, first paragraph, 6^th sentence – change to read: “The sign requested by the applicant is 36”x 24”.

·        Page 4, Clayton, Deliberation/Decision, paragraph following Motion – change “Reg Gignoux advised the applicant...” to “Reg Gignoux asked the applicant...”;

·        Page 7, Jolley Associates, Staff Report, 1^st paragraph, last sentence – change “...legal opinion on the matter is needed” to “...legal opinion on the matter may be needed”.

Robinson Hill appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Robinson Hill explained the work he is doing on the third floor of the housing unit. There are three rooms. The western and eastern rooms have windows.  The central room has no windows and is dark with little air circulation. The plan is to install an opening skylight for air flow and light.  A skylight will also be installed in the western room to take advantage of the sun (passive solar benefits) in the winter.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to grant design review approval to Robinson Hill for the proposal to install two skylight windows in the residential unit at 25 McCabe Circle consistent with the plans submitted and subject to the following condition: All other conditions of approval not affected by this action shall remain in effect.  VOTING:  unanimous (6-0); motion carried.

Howard Seaver appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Seaver confirmed the request for a continuance until after August 13, 2007, noting the August meeting of the Zoning Board is on the second Monday of the month, and it will be known following the next Shelburne Selectboard meeting if the Development Review Board meetings will be on the record (if this is the case then the application can be reviewed by both boards).

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

No one appeared on behalf of the applications.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received written staff reports on the applications, dated 7/12/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock reviewed modifications to the building envelopes. Lot #6 has two distinct areas (quarry and area beyond the quarry) where development could occur. It is feasible there could be two different plans for development on each area. For this reason the building envelope has remained as depicted (very large).  Feedback is coming in from the wildlife evaluation and this will likely cause further adjustments to the sites.  Regarding fencing, the agreement with Shelburne Farms has been firmed up and the intent is any fencing in the area will be as transparent as possible while still accomplishing its function. Some of the vegetative areas will align with the wildlife corridors and not be mowed. There are many recommendations in the wildlife evaluation. Some are impractical. Effort will be made to incorporate as many recommendations as possible. Fencing changes will be recommended to allow wildlife movement through the corridors. The fencing will be “wildlife friendly”.  Regarding clearing of trees or vegetation, there will be no clear cutting. View corridors will be incorporated where possible. Clearing will also be modified per the wildlife recommendations. Mr. Vock stated the property owner is trying to comply with recommendations without changing the character of the subdivision (e.g. quantify what to do with regard to clearing versus restrictions).

 

There was discussion of the bike path and subdivision of the land per the regulations. It was noted Mr. Cabot is not interested in going through additional processes or permitting. Reg Gignoux asked about the ability of the town to have a bike way or pathway on Harbor Road and/or Bay Road. Steve Vock pointed out the fence has been pulled back from the property line and there is adequate space for a path and the water line in the corridor. David Conard noted Mr. Cabot reserves the right to grant recreation path easements on Harbor Road. An easement can be granted on Bay Road, but there is a cutting restriction on the vegetative buffer.  Reg Gignoux suggested planning for an easement now. Mr. Conard stated the property owner is not adverse to the possibility of an easement, but the matter needs further discussion. The applicant wants whatever is done to be consistent with a future path. The vegetative buffer can be pulled back to where the fence is located so there is no cutting of trees when and if a path is built. There was mention of the agreement with Shelburne Farms to ensure the open fields are mowed.

 

Reg Gignoux referred to the staff comment regarding frontage on Lot #3. Steve Vock stated it is felt the lot as proposed is appropriate though minor changes can be made if necessary.  Mr. Gignoux asked about a “floating” building envelope on Lot #6 and having the final building site determined upon sale of the lot. Staige Davis stated to be as flexible as possible is the greatest advantage to the seller. Steve Vock suggested a primary building envelope for the house and a secondary building envelope for accessory buildings. Mr. Gignoux noted agricultural buildings do not have to be contained within the building envelope for the primary residence. Dean Pierce confirmed buildings and uses can be spread out on the lot, but the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee may question if this is compatible with the environmental information.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about having invisible fencing along the driveway rather than a wood fence so the view and corridors are not impacted. Mr. Vock explained the fencing was done to establish the perimeter. Invisible fencing is for the interior. Mr. Vock said he can speak with the property owner on the matter again.  David Conard defined invisible fencing as transparent as reasonably practical.

 

Dick Elkins asked about the covenants, specifically Page 3 pertaining to the perimeter setback and what structures are permitted. Dean Pierce stated per the regulations structures that accommodate the handicap are allowed (i.e. bus shelters). The applicant is looking for the same flexibility to having a setback area as any lot. Mr. Elkins asked about the reference in the covenants (Page 4) to occupancy (no tents, shacks, mobile homes). David Conard stated the town cannot have these structures, but a property owner can have them as long as they are not visible from the other lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Steve Vock appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Vock noted Shelburne Public Works requested a storm water system for drainage in the area be considered so a 15” drainage pipe rather than a ditch is shown on the plans. The pipe rather than a grass swale is more appropriate to handle the volume of water in the area and help prevent erosion. There is also roadside drainage along the proposed driveway. The existing swale (on the northern boundary) will be maintained and there will be a catch basin for storm water run off. The property has been surveyed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07. Dean Pierce referred to comments from the Fire Chief regarding the driveway entrance, width of the driveway, and a turnaround area. Glenn Johnson stated the items will be addressed as part of a building application on the newly created lot.  Mr. Vock noted a typical turnaround design will use most of the lot. Dean Pierce said he suggested a packed surface covered with grass as an alternative for a turnaround, but the Fire Chief did not seem interested in the idea. Glenn Johnson offered his lot and driveway for turnaround space.

 

Tucker Holland asked if the proposed drainage system will handle run off on the north side of the lot. Mr. Pierce said comments from the Public Works Director have not yet been received. There was a separate conversation with Paul Goodrich about the 15” drainage pipe.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Lori Dubois, neighbor, submitted and read a letter from Richard and Janet Dubois, dated 7/12/07, regarding concern for impact on their property by the proposed Johnson subdivision and subsequent development on the new lot.

 

Janet Dubois, neighbor, stated drainage from all the houses comes down to their property. The new houses built four or five years ago were supposed to pipe the water out, but the work was never done. Steve Vock reviewed the water collection system designed to catch water at several collection points before entering the ditch on the Dubois property. It was noted the culvert by the Dubois property will be covered eliminating the mowing challenge for the Dubois family. Also, the proposed drainage system will not damage the roots of the trees planted along the Dubois property line.

 

Ernie Goodrich, neighbor, noted there is water flowing off the south side of the lot as well, and suggested the water be “hard piped” to Falls Road and then into the town storm drain. Mr. Vock will review the drainage pattern on the south side of the lot.  Mr. Goodrich also mentioned the letter from Cindy and Jeff Shedd, dated 6/26/07, regarding the placement of the proposed driveway. Mr. Goodrich echoed the concerns expressed by the Shedds about the driveway. Steve Vock stated the driveway is located in the best location for the surrounding houses. The width of the proposed driveway is adequate for snow storage.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Dean Pierce mentioned there is a deliberative item with the application that the Planning Commission could discuss in deliberative session.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 9:15 p.m.

 

 

Deliberative session was adjourned and the regular meeting reconvened at 9:29 p.m.

 

 

Steve Vock and Michael Dugan appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock reviewed the site plan showing the original Dexter Shoes building and lot. The front yard setback is 169.5’ based on lot coverage. The parking requirement is based on the office use of the building space. There is more than adequate parking on the site for the employment needs. The proposed new building footprint is 6,400 s.f. The building will be two stories above ground (eastern elevation) and one story below ground (western side). The below ground area will be used for storage. There is a secured door to the lower level. A ramp may be installed rather than stairs. Existing utilities (water, sewer) will be used. Power lines on the site will be underground. Site lighting will be shoebox style lights. The intent is to provide security lighting not high illumination in the parking lot. Mr. Vock further reviewed parking, berms, site grading, and snow removal plans. The dumpster which will be in a wood enclosure is located in the back corner of the lot. The existing building and parking lot will be demolished and replaced with the proposed low profile structure and landscaping.

 

Michael Dugan stated the building will be two tones of brick (dark and light) with green tinted glass. The building will be within the 35’ height limit and will not increase impervious surface on the site. There are louvers on the west and south side of the structure. Plantings and landscaping per the landscape plan were reviewed. The green space in front of the building is nearly doubled in size because the new building is located farther back from the road. There will be a sign on the stone wall. The sign will be of very simple design (stating “UBS”) and built to town standards. A separate application for the sign(s) will be submitted.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about roof top units. Michael Dugan stated UBS prefers no roof top units. Mechanicals will be located in the back of the building. There may be satellite dishes on the building. Mr. Gibbs asked about deliveries and the need for a loading dock. Steve Vock stated the building will be an office use with mainly small UPS or FedEx type deliveries.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about using wood and stone materials for the building rather than brick. Mike Dugan stated brick was chosen so the building would be maintenance free.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about potential use of the rental space designated on the plan. Mr. Dugan confirmed this space is available, but it is hoped UBS will use it for future growth of the company. There is enough parking to address a tenant or additional growth of UBS at the site. Trey Pecor confirmed his company would rather not have a tenant in the space. Dean Pierce noted with an additional tenant at the site, the issue of signs will have to be addressed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07. Dean Pierce noted the Fire Chief asked about sprinklers in the building (the applicant confirmed the building will have an internal sprinkler system for fire suppression) and the location of the nearest hydrant (there is one on Route 7). Mr. Pierce asked about a possible sidewalk connection to Route 7. Steve Vock stated adding a sidewalk/bike path to the plan will impact the lot coverage. Striping can be done on the pavement to designate a pathway.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if the site plan as presented shows parking with the 20% parking waiver. Steve Vock confirmed this, and explained the parking waiver is requested because the amount of parking provided (77 spaces) exceeds what is needed for the anticipated 45 employees on-site. The waste water permit submitted to the state is for 45 employees on the site. With 77 spaces and 45 employees there is a remainder of 32 spaces for visitors which is excessive based on the planned office use. There was discussion of eliminating parking spaces to avoid having more paving than necessary. Mr. Vock suggested eliminating parking in the front of the building to allow more green space. Dick Elkins mentioned the matter of the tenant in the building changing in the future and potential need for more parking. Steve Vock stated a new permit will have to be secured for a change in use.  Dean Pierce pointed out the bylaws allow changes within the same use category without further review by the Planning Commission. There was further discussion of the parking in front of the building. There was agreement installing sub-base, fabric, topsoil, and seed in the area of the front nine spaces is acceptable, and if necessary in the future the parking spaces can be reclaimed.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Wakefield appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself and Hilda White assumed the duties of chairperson.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Wakefield explained the change of use of 3,500 s.f. in the rear corner of the Harbour Industries building for exotic/vintage car sales. Repairs will not occur at the site. Business will be transacted mainly via the Internet. There will be up to a maximum of 14 cars in the building (cars will be driven into the building space through an overhead door). No exterior changes to the building are proposed. Regarding parking, there are three tenants in the building (office, warehouse uses). There are 77 parking spaces on-site. A maximum of 40 spaces is needed for all the tenants which leaves a remainder of 37 spaces. The parking does not overflow between the buildings. Maximum vehicle trip-ends for all tenants combined is 120 per day. Site circulation is good. There is a back drive for deliveries and a front drive for customers and employees.

 

STAFF REPORT

The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/12/07. Dean Pierce explained the Planning Commission cannot review the impact of the other uses on the property under the warned application. The focus of the review (and the warned application) is on the change of use for 3,500 s.f. of space within the building. The site plan showing the change of use will replace the previously approved plan for the site.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Reg Gignoux resumed the duties of chairman.

 

A work session for the Planning Commission is scheduled on 7/19/07.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.