MEMBERS PRESENT:       Reg Gignoux (Chairman); Peter Gibbs, Kay Kraushaar, Dick Elkins, Jim Washburn.

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner; John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Howard Seaver, Bernard Hussels, Marian Feldman, Steve Feldman, Michael Serrano, John Ondovchik, Dianna Olsen, Sean Crumb, Ron Lyon, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Conditional Use Application & Site Plan Review, Convenience Store, Gas Pumps, and Restaurant, 10 Executive Drive, Jolley Associates (CU01-14 & SP03-05)

·        Conditional Use Application, Porch, 160 Maple Leaf Lane, Hussels (CU05-30R1)

·        Sketch Plan Review, Boundary Line Adjustment, 293 Ordway Shore Road, Feldman (SUB07-06)

Jim Barlow with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) reviewed statutory rules of procedure for a development review board.

Chairman Gignoux called the regular meeting of the Shelburne Development Review Board to order at 7 p.m.

 

The Board discussed the following issues:

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Howard Seaver, Ron Lyon, and Sean Crumb appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Howard Seaver stated the project is the same as submitted in 1997 and is “grandfathered” in terms of use. Jolley Associates has been reluctant to make changes to the proposal to avoid jeopardizing the “grandfathered” status. Through discussion with staff and past boards, there appears to be support for modification of the plan which makes it more attractive to the town. Modifications must be done by conditions or a mutual understanding, not a new application because of the negative impact on the “grandfathered” status. One item of issue was the design and exterior appearance of the building. Examples of different building styles supported by Jolley Associates will be shown to the Board.  Also, the staff report noted in 2001 the Shelburne Zoning Board had a negative result on certain conditional use criteria. There have been changes to the area (widening of Route 7) since then and there is additional information on the items.

 

Ron Lyon gave a brief overview of the project. Regarding distinguishing the walkway from the driveway, colored pavement for the sidewalk is acceptable. A bike rack will be installed. Updated information on exterior lighting will be submitted. Landscaping includes a stone wall as a foreground element to help take the focus off cars at the site. Regarding parking for the gas station use, it is felt there is adequate parking on the site. Parking in front of the store entryway is discouraged. The original design of the building included architectural elements that resembled the Almartin building. The intent was to have a higher quality, higher level architectural interest in the building. There is room for discussion on the design. The gas pump canopy has been eliminated. Photographs of Jolley Associates buildings in the area were shown. It was noted several different designs for the buildings were employed.

 

Reg Gignoux stressed by human nature people will park in front of the store. A better and more realistic layout of parking and traffic patterns is needed to accommodate human nature. Ron Lyon agreed to review the parking configuration, noting the layout is such to avoid backing motion in the gas area.  Mr. Gignoux suggested the pumps could be angled slightly differently. Sean Crumb stated the suggestion will be taken under consideration.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received written staff reports on the applications, dated 9/19/07.  Reg Gignoux expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on the character of the area. Peter Gibbs echoed the concern, noting the difficulty of reviewing an application without the site plan showing the current proposal. Dick Elkins pointed out the town has a significant bias against gas stations, making them conditional uses. The DRB needs to know precisely what the applicant is requesting for conditional uses.  There was further discussion of scenarios with a restaurant and without a restaurant. Parking requirement for a deli/convenience store and gas station is one space for every 150 square feet of space.  The applicant noted the building will be the same size. Less parking is needed for a store/deli rather than a restaurant. Setbacks and other regulations are met with the store use. Dean Pierce mentioned the DRB can request a plan illustrating two uses with corresponding changes and the building located closer to Route 7 with the parking behind the building. Reg Gignoux stated the deli/gas station mix is out of character for the section of Route 7 north (i.e. the goals and objectives of the town plan and master plan for Route 7 north).  Ron Lyon explained with regard to the plan for Route 7 north and the Shelburne Town Plan in relation to the proposal, the goal is to make Route 7 a cohesive business area to serve the town and provide safe and efficient traffic movements. The plan also supports a mix of uses and clustering of commercial development (the Jolley proposal has a mix of uses and is within the business park), managing the scale of land use development to manage traffic generation (the proposal incorporates use of the newly improved Route 7 without negatively impacting the level of service at the intersection), access for pedestrians and vehicles (facilities are there with the Route 7 improvements), aesthetics (the landscape plan for the project improves the aesthetics of the site), and coordinating access.

 

Howard Seaver stated Jolley Associates sells gas and operates convenience stores with small deli services inside, and if that does not fit the character of the area or the town does not want a gas station, the DRB can make that decision and the case (the original development plan) will be brought before the Environmental Court. If the town can accept the nature of the business, the applicant can address nicely the appearance of the building and the uses in the building. The applicant feels the types of businesses fit with the character of the area. If the matter is brought before the court, the judge could rule in favor of the applicant and the town may end up with something that is not wanted (i.e. the original proposal for a gas station, convenience store, and restaurant).

 

Dean Pierce noted the DRB can support making the proposal better by eliminating a use, for example, but not commit to a final plan at this point. The proposed uses are all conditional uses.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mike Serrano, resident, expressed concern about storm water drainage, the project being feasible for the lot, and the impact on the existing retention pond. Ron Lyon explained storm water drainage details have not yet been presented. State permits will be secured and the required documentation submitted. With the subdivision, the (storm water) design must go through the state review process. Spill prevention measures will be in place per standards for gas stations.  Sean Crumb assured Jolley Associates will adhere to state requirements for storm water drainage. A drainage system around the gas islands will be installed to direct run off to a water-oil separator and to catch pollution. The gas tanks are double walled, some of fiberglass and some of steel depending on what is appropriate for the area. There is an electronic leak detection and overfill protection system on the tanks. Additionally, the volume in the tanks is manually measured (with a measure stick) before filling with gas from the tanker truck.  The primary concern for Jolley Associates is pollution so the system is very carefully monitored. Peter Gibbs asked about the discharge point for the water-oil separator. Ron Lyon stated the overflow goes into the storm water system which is yet to be designed. There is a storm water drainage system on the site presently as part of the Route 7 improvements.

 

John Ondovchik, proprietor of the Days Inn, expressed concern about small gas containers (five gallons for lawn mowers and such) spilling and flowing into the pond, adding the type of business proposed for the site has lots of customers so there is a high chance of spills occurring.  Sean Crumb explained there is a concrete pad by the fueling islands and a drainage system around the perimeter of the pad so contaminants drain into the water-oil separator and are treated. Ron Lyon further explained petroleum products are filtered out of the water and the tanks are cleaned on a regular basis. Mr. Ondovchik commented the cement pads are taking away green area. Concern was also expressed for the lights on the site not being screened and impacting the residential properties in the vicinity, especially his daughter’s house that was built in 1865.  Mr. Ondovchik objected to the project because it will cause much inconvenience. Mr. Lyon conceded there will be more lights with more development, but development along a highway corridor is expected. The traffic numbers for Lot #1 (the project site) are the same or less than the numbers for the original subdivision.

 

Marian Feldman, resident, questioned the need for a 52-seat restaurant and another gas station in the area. Also, the 30” high wall that is proposed will not screen cars and trucks. Reg Gignoux pointed out gas stations are not allowed under current zoning, but the project is ‘grandfathered’ because it was submitted when gas stations were allowed. Howard Seaver explained the gas station was part of the plan submitted 10 years ago and remains because it is a ‘grandfathered’ use for the site. The applicant would prefer a convenience store and small deli rather than a restaurant.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bernard Hussels appeared on behalf of the application. Jim Washburn disclosed he knows Mr. Bernard Hussels, but does not feel this will influence his review of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Hussels explained his son purchased the house at 160 Maple Leaf Lane and did renovations. There is 1,740 s.f. of house coverage presently, but with the proposed modifications the coverage will be decreased to 1,612 s.f. The new deck will be added to the back of the house and will be smaller, screened in and roofed. The deck will not be visible to the neighbors. Total lot coverage will decrease by 128 s.f.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/19/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Marian and Steve Feldman appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Marian Feldman stated they purchased the property at 293 Ordway Shore Road in 1984. There was a natural line of trees (cedars) on the southern boundary. The previous owner had a gravel parking area bordering what was thought to be the property line. Over time the old cedar trees started to fall down and were replaced (about 18 years ago), being planted in front of the existing fence. The property was recently surveyed and the true boundary lines were discovered. The proposal is to have the land be unencumbered and officially locate the right-of-way along the tree line as the property has been used for the past 20 years. The neighbor (Fontaine) is in agreement with the proposal. (It was noted a letter was submitted to staff authorizing the applicant to act on the Fontaine’s behalf.)

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/19/07. John Adams stated the lot is existing and nonconforming. It is unclear if the boundary can be modified according to the bylaws. A legal opinion may be needed. The proposed change will decrease the size of the Fontaine lot and increase the size of the Feldman lot, but both lots will continue to be less than the required lot size for the district (five acres).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

None.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.