FEBRUARY 5, 2007

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Tom Koerner, Chairperson; John Holt, Gwen Webster. (Boris Funtow and Steve Waltien were absent.)

ADMINISTRATION:           Brian Bigelow, Zoning Coordinator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Steve Reynes, Rebecca Stearns, Doug Moses, Christopher Eling, Dan Hassan, Peter Morris, Margery Sharp (Shelburne News).

Mr. Koerner called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Introductions were made. Mr. Koerner reviewed the hearing process and establishment of “Interested Party” status. It was noted with only three of the five member board present, a unanimous vote in support of an application is necessary for an approval. The Zoning Board may elect to deliberate in Deliberative Session following the conclusion of the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Steve Reynes, Peter Morris, Chris Eling, Doug Moses, Dan Hassan, and Rebecca Stearns, agents, appeared on behalf of the application. It was noted that Zoning Board member, Steve Waltien, recused himself from deliberation/decision on the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Koerner reviewed the staff report, noting this is the 5^th meeting on the application (The Lodge at Shelburne Bay). The Board will hear further testimony. Mr. Koerner noted receipt of a letter from the Town Attorney (the legal firm of Stitzel, Page and Fletcher). Mr. Bigelow reported staff had discussion with the Town Attorney and concurs the proposed modified application is different enough from the original application that it and should be re-warned. Mr. Koerner stated the Board received supplemental material/information from the applicant which the applicant can explain.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Attorney Reynes explained the requested conditional use application as a similar use per §820.22. The applicant contends that “congregate housing” is a similar use to the existing Shelburne Bay Senior Living Community. The building project has not changed with with the exception of the proposed material for a fire road. Regarding procedure, the applicant understood a PRD was required and this would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Town staff discussed a similar use with the applicant and it was thought a PRD was not needed, continued Attorney Reynes. Mr. Bigelow noted a question was raised related to lot coverage which exceeds 46%. The applicant has now filed a plan detailing how lot coverage will be reduced to 40% or below.  Mr. Koerner confirmed the Zoning Board was aware the application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Attorney Reynes stated the Planning Commission reviewed the plan and its merits. There was a question as to whether the Planning Commission could hear all the merits of the proposal so the hearing was not closed to allow the project to move forward if possible. Another question involved the definition of the use if it is not determined to be ‘elderly housing’. A memo, dated 1/25/07, was filed with the Zoning Board regarding “similar use.” Per §830 “other uses” require two acres. The parcel under discussion is over four acres. The Shelburne Bay parcel is approximately 10 acres. The Planning Commission did not make a determination on the language and “elderly housing” terminology. The term “congregate housing” allows flexibility. Most of the residents will be over 60 years old. The use continuing care as defined in the zoning bylaws. The proposal is for independent living and residential care units to provide social and personal care up to but not including skilled nursing care. The term “congregate housing” fits the description versus elderly care.

 

Peter Morris reviewed the revised site plan showing a fire road looping around back the back of the Ponderosa building. The fire road will join an existing service road in the rear. The fire road will be built to support the heavy fire vehicles, but the permeable material of the road will be covered with soil and grass. Doug Moses clarified the plan is to use the same subsurface that is at Shelburne Bay. The surface will be grass and will be defined with shrubs.

 

John Holt pointed out the general information application listed use as “elderly housing”, and a letter, dated 9/25/06, mentioned §820.22 and §830.01. Attorney Reynes pointed out the listing of “similar use” as well, stressing in retrospect, the correct listing is “similar use” versus “elderly housing”. Mr. Holt stated the application as submitted is for housing for the elderly versus a “similar use”. Attorney Reynes pointed out the minutes from the 12/4/06 Zoning Board meeting note the application is for a “similar use.” The applicant should not have to state ‘elderly housing’. Furthermore, Ms. Leonard warned a variance when a variance is not needed, and since the application is for a similar use then a re-warning is not necessary, however, if the application is re-warned, then the words “elderly use” should be deleted.

 

Ms. Webster asked about the length of the building. Mr. Morris stated the building is proposed at 418’ long. There is 515’ of road frontage on Route 7. Mr. Eling noted the existing U-shaped Shelburne Bay Center building is 392’ 9” long.

 

Attorney Reynes stated the proposed use will use less water, generate less traffic, and eliminate some of the current accesses. Screening from Route 7 includes a berm and landscaping. Mr. Morris added there will be similar architectural features as found on the existing Shelburne Bay building (i.e. clapboards, singles, and such).

 

Discussion of the project as a new application resumed. Attorney Reynes referred to a memo, dated 1/25/07, noting the conditional use warning for the project. Mr. Reynes stated the design has not changed. The project is not different. It was warned as a similar use and elderly housing, but now it is being modified as a similar use. Mr. Bigelow interjected that the proposal has changed enough and there are enough changes to the language in the previous application to warrant re-warning the proposal. Mr. Hassan pointed out the existing Shelburne Bay Senior Center offers residential care with staff providing oversight. The new project will have these services. A certain number of units will be designated as continuous care. A license from the state for that level of care will be secured. Ms. Stearns clarified there will be 72 independent living units of which 40 units will be licensed with the state as residential care Level 3. This is not medical care, but personal care.  The Memory Care studio units are proposed to be 300 square feet each. Mr. Hassan noted the application as originally warned did not have opposition.

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

The public hearing for The Lodge at Shelburne Bay was closed at 7:40 p.m.

 

 

Daniel Senecal-Albrecht and Brianne Riley had informal discussions with the Board about items that might appear on a future agenda.  Mr. Senecal-Albrecht of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission wanted to clarify expectations about a potential request under §1680.12.B “In the event that a particular situation is not set forth herein, which in the opinion of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is consistent with the philosophy set forth in this section, the Board of Adjustment may approve the proposed sign, provided that all of the other provisions of this section are satisfied.”  Ms. Riley, 5462 Shelburne Road, is proposing a Home Occupation with a retail aspect within the Village/VDROD.

 

 

MOTION by Ms. Webster, seconded by Mr. Holt, to enter Deliberative Session with Staff. VOTE: unanimous (3-0); motion carried.

 

Deliberative session was convened at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

The ZBA exited Deliberative Session and reconvened the regular meeting at 8:55 p.m. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ZBA meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary.

 

 

_________________________________      _________________________________

Thomas Koerner, Chair                                    Gwen Webster, Vice Chair

 

 

_________________________________     

John Holt

 

Copies:

   Applicants

   Town Clerk

   Files