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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Chris Eling, Alfredo Acoy Cofino, Samantha Cofino, Shelby Barone for Shelburne Champlain Housing Trust, Ellen London, Gregg Beldock, Roger Dickinson, Mark Sperry, Rebecca Stearns, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Awnings, 20 Shelburne Shopping Park, Steve and Sara Clayton (DR07-25)

·        Design Review & Site Plan Review, Fence, 2206 Shelburne Road (aka Ockert Lane), Shelburne Champlain Housing Trust (DR07-24 & SUB01-10R2)

·        Site Plan Review, Boundary Line Adjustment(s), Ordway Shore Road, Stuart Morrow for Lola Van Wagenan (SUB06-08R1)

·        Design Review, Conditional Use, & Site Plan Review, Renovations for Change of Use from Retail to Food Service, 52 Harbor Road, Alfredo and Samantha Cofino (DR07-23, CU04-21R1, & SP04-06R1)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, PRD for 54 Assisted Care Living Units, Shelburne Road, Shelburne Bay Senior Living (CU07-10 & SUB98-06R4)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Convenience Store, Gas Pumps, Restaurant, 1 Shelburne Business Park (Executive Drive), Jolley Associates (CU01-14 & SP03-05)

Chairman Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and reviewed the agenda

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

Suggested amendments to the document included:

·        Three alternate members versus two;

·        Language that allows changes to the agenda at the DRB meeting if necessary (Section 6, end of paragraph E);

·        Itemized lists appear as subsets of previous lists (Page 3 and Page 5, item G);

·        Provide reasons for Executive Session (Page 3, Section 6.D);

·        Delete “owing to expenses” in Section 7.A on Page 4;

·        Clarify language to say “technical review on behalf of the town and/or the DRB” (Page 6, Section 10);

·        Change “will be videotaped” to “may be videotaped” (Page 8, Section 16);

·        Regarding language about the “rules adopted to ensure...”, in the first instance change ‘ensure’ to “promote” and in the second instance state “establish protocols” (Section 2);

·        Insert “at any time” before “majority vote” with regard to convening Deliberative Session (Section 2.D);

·        Add “including but not limited to” language to note other town staff in addition to the Planner and Zoning Administrator may assist the DRB (Page 7).

 

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.

 

Steve Clayton appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Clayton explained awnings are being added to both exits and entryways to stop the north wind during the winter months and help conserve heat inside the store. The awnings have clear vinyl panels on the sides.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/17/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Shelby Barone appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Barone explained the privacy fence will be located on the southeast portion of the property. There is a strong south and north wind on the knoll and tractor trailer trucks idling on the adjacent property creating lots of air pollution and dust blowing across the road and into windows. The color of the fence will be earth tone taupe.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/17/07.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Stuart Morrow appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself and Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of Chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stuart Morrow explained in December, 2006, the Planning Commission approved the application currently before the DRB. Shelburne’s Public Works Director had some concern about the right-of-way for the water line and the mylar was not recorded within the required timeframe so re-approval is being sought. The only change to the application is a boundary line adjustment on the northerly Van Wagenan parcel (transfer to the southerly parcel).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/17/07.  John Adams urged the DRB to compare the original proposal to the most recently submitted map: the 1.19 acre lot is changed to a 2.15 acre lot and the 1.43 acres lot is changed to a 1.16 acre lot. The change makes an existing small lot even smaller. Stuart Morrow noted originally the lot was .93 acres for the past 70 years or so. In 2003 a boundary line adjustment with the Cowles property increased the lot size to 1.4 acres.  John Adams pointed out the development potential on either lot is unchanged. Increased development on the lot is not feasible in either configuration though an accessory structure in a different location would be possible with the current proposal.  Mr. Morrow pointed out the old road as shown on the site plan does not exist. A new road has been constructed. Considerable landscaping has been done to the area as well. The driveways for each separate lot intersect with the new road.  There was further discussion of the location of the road, some portion of which is on the Cowles property. Stuart Morrow said he does not know if an easement has been recorded. Nick Cowles was a party to the proposal and agreed to the changes. John Adams interjected the Public Works Director did provide comment on the proposal, noting revisions have been made that do indicate the easement is along the property line.

 

Dick Elkins referred to Section 1690.4 of the bylaws regarding reduction of a lot that does not meet minimum lot size in a zone, and felt the DRB cannot approve the application. Kay Kraushaar agreed, but observed the boundary change improves the configuration of the lots. Following further discussion, the DRB concurred the 2006 site plan can be re-approved and the property owner can submit an application for the boundary line adjustment. Stuart Morrow commented this is an example of where the town zones an area and does not address existing small lots. Shelburne Heights is another example where pre-existing small lots should be addressed differently.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

It was reiterated that the applicant seeks re-approval of a final subdivision application endorsed by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2006.

 

 

Reg Gignoux returned to the Planning Commission and resumed the duties of Chairman.

 

Acoy and Samantha Cofino appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux announced he owns property in the vicinity of 52 Harbor Road, but does not feel this will impact his review of the application. The DRB concurred.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Samantha Cofino explained the proposed change of use from retail to food service and associated renovations.  A floor plan of the structure was submitted to the DRB. The café on the first floor is 1,094 s.f. The residential unit on the second floor is 1,376 s.f., but 282 s.f. is an overhang and a staircase from the first floor to the second floor. The handicap parking space is located as close as possible to the front entrance to the café. The space will be grassed over. Pavers are not being added except at the front entrance of the ramp to ease the access. No trees will be removed from the property. The sign will be 36” wide and 30” high, hung off the ramp. The sign clearance between the ramp and the sidewalk is 5’3”. The sign will be painted and made of wood.  Trash will be held in receptacles in the basement and delivered to the landfill every other day. There is no loading dock. Access to the kitchen is via the back porch. There are seven parking spaces (six plus one access space). Six fixed seats per parking space is proposed (total of 21 seats and seven parking spaces).  Hours of operation will be 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Peak hour traffic on Harbor Road is between 7:40 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. after which the traffic volume decreases dramatically. It is expected patrons of the café will be local residents who are aware of the traffic patterns. Walking or biking to the site is encouraged. The café is not expected to increase traffic on the road, stated Ms. Cofino. There will be no outdoor seating.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/17/07. John Adams recommended the DRB table action on the application in order to address the issue of traffic impact. There is also a question about sewer capacity for the use.  Grassing over the handicap parking space must comply with ADA requirements.  The Design Review Committee discussed locating the accessible space by parking spaces #2 and #3 on the site plan. There was discussion of the location of the handicap ramp being so close to Harbor Road and the potential for traffic to be blocked.  Traffic circulation on the site is entry on the east side and exit on the west side.  Reg Gignoux requested further clarification of the traffic in the area, suggesting the CCMPO be contacted for data. Jim Washburn asked how the DRB will decide if the proposal generates too much traffic versus another use, such as a doctor or law office. John Adams stated if the proposal causes the intersection of Harbor Road/Route 7 to “fail”, then the configuration may need adjustment. Mr. Gignoux pointed out the traffic issue at the intersection of Harbor Road/Route 7 is long standing between the town and state transportation agency. The situation is already bad. An update on the status of the matter is needed.

 

Dick Elkins asked about the rear garden area that is not incorporated into the project. The applicant stated the area is nice as is. Mr. Elkins also asked for clarification of the waste storage issue.

 

It was noted the configuration does require 10 parking spaces, but the DRB can decrease the parking requirement in the village center. There is area in the back of the lot where additional parking or even a dumpster could be located. There is also public parking available in the vicinity.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Gregg Beldock, Mark Sperry, Roger Dickinson, and Rebecca Stearns appeared on behalf of the application.

 

Reg Gignoux commented the building appears institutional, making the Correctional Center appear a friendly place. The building is flat walled and can been seen from the lake. The building looks hideous and the design is not imaginative, opined Mr. Gignoux, recalling the applicant was asked to break up the façade in the design. Also, the drawings are not scaled. The renderings are done by an architect. The entrances and exits do not make sense. There are issues of fire safety. There are many issues to resolve, continued Mr. Gignoux, adding he is predisposed to not approve the application.  Gregg Beldock requested the opportunity to change Mr. Gignoux’s opinion.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Gregg Beldock said he feels the building is a dramatic improvement to the entrance to Shelburne. The building cannot be seen from the lake or Pine Haven Shore Road. The building cannot be seen clearly from an easterly direction on Pine Haven Shore Road. With digital photography (which are the renderings presented) the buildings can be shown in scale on Shelburne Road.  The façade of the portion of the building that is visible has been broken up.  The layout provides a park like entrance way to Shelburne. It is not offensive and is a drastic improvement to what is there now (fast food restaurant and parking). The architectural renderings of the entrance to the building and the park (terrace garden) on the east side were reviewed. The overhead connector between the buildings has been eliminated. The connection will be underground. The building has a beautiful façade, continued Mr. Beldock. The mansard roof with the stucco façade is very attractive. The project is a self-contained, terrific land use and an appropriate use for the town. The campus setting minimizes trips and demand on public services. An existing eyesore is being replaced by a park like setting at the entrance to the town. The character of the area is positively impacted by the project, stressed Mr. Beldock.  Comments from the Shelburne Fire Chief are welcome. The project is subject to state review for fire and safety codes. The construction is unique to the State of Vermont. The building is steel and LEDE certified.  Mr. Beldock referred to the town plan, dated 1/12/06, items 4, 5, 6 which mention housing for diverse an array of residents, pointing out the project is congregate housing for elder residents (assisted and home care). The project is a mixed use and meets all criteria. The project is a PRD (Planned Residential Development), not a PUD (Planned Unit Development).

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about services in the new building. Mr. Beldock explained three meals per day will be served, transportation provided as needed, supervision with medicines to a degree, daily personal care (help with dressing and such), housekeeping, and emergency services (the area towns’ ambulance services are used when needed).  There are dining facilities in the new building (warming kitchens in several locations) and the food is great.  There is not a VNA office in the building, but there are nurse stations throughout the building.  Memory impaired units will remain in the existing building where most of the nursing and support staff are located.  There is a pool and gym, but both will likely be expanded based on the volume of use that is desired.  Physical therapy is done on-site, gym classes and exercise classes are held, and day trips are provided.

 

Jim Washburn commented the building has many windows and the style is redundant, not much variety in the façade.  Reg Gignoux added the building is of massive size for Shelburne. The building is 300’ long. Mr. Gignoux expressed concern for the view from the west. Mr. Beldock promised renderings showing views from the west at the next meeting. Very little of the view from the apartments at Shelburne Bay Senior Living is interrupted by the new building. There is a hill and the Arteck building there now. The proposed building is lowered 16’ and the front area will be more attractive. The Arteck building blocks the view. Only the third floor of the new building is visible from Shelburne Road. Some of the existing cedar trees are 30’ high.

 

Peter Gibbs referred to the letter from Mark Sperry, dated 9/24/07, regarding the PRD and density issue, asking how to justify decreasing the density of 3,500 s.f. per unit which is the current regulation and the formula for units at Shelburne Bay Senior Living (112 units on nine acres equates to 3,500 s.f. per unit).  Mark Sperry stated density was not an issue at Shelburne Bay Senior Living since there was nine acres of land. The concept of two acres came from conversation with the Town Planner, Dean Pierce.  The DRB can modify dimensional requirements including density, opined Mr. Sperry.  The 3,500 s.f. per dwelling unit applies to independent living units. The proposed units are not of that type so the same density requirement should not apply. Wit the proposed units the impact on traffic in the area and water/sewer services is less. There is a need for the project and that justifies the need for modification, stressed Mr. Sperry.  Gregg Beldock added the equation of 112 units on nine acres or 3,500 s.f. per unit for Shelburne Bay Senior Living was a coincidence. With regard to current operational needs, 65 units were based on FTE and the design of the building.  Attorney Sperry noted the density regulation is discretionary, saying “may modify”. The proposed units are not typical living units, but are assisted living dwellings. The justification to modify the density is due to the type of units and the need for the type of housing units. Mr. Beldock further explained assisted living units need to be smaller in size. Also, it is unconstitutional to mandate a resident must have larger space.  Roger Dickinson stated the typical unit of housing is designed for multiple occupants. With the proposal a ‘unit’ is a single room with one or two occupants.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/17/07. Dean Pierce gave the DRB a copy of written comments from the Public Works Director, the Fire Chief, information on definitions, and a note from the Rescue Squad regarding the size of the elevators and the road connection between Shelburne Bay Senior Living and the bowling alley (helps to reduce response time).

 

There was discussion of traffic. Roger Dickinson will submit level of service information in writing. The level of service on Pine Haven Shore Road remains at “B” with the proposal.  There is a driveway connection with Handy with a deed restriction for deliveries only. Dean Pierce noted a phone call was received from Bill Andrus, adjacent property owner, reiterating Mr. Andrus’ concern about the driveway and additional traffic from the project.

 

There was discussion of the building. Reg Gignoux asked if there is only one exit on the west side to the outside grounds. The applicant pointed out there are two doors on the south side and two doors on the north side of the building. The building is significantly smaller than other senior living communities being built in other parts of the state. Kay Kraushaar mentioned density bonuses for larger facades that show variety. Dean Pierce clarified there is a “good design” concept related to qualifying for decreased front yard setbacks.  Dick Elkins requested an ‘as built’ that shows the building, floor by floor.  Mr. Elkins observed the parking for the proposal was decreased from 47 spaces to 29 spaces.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Dean Pierce reported the Town Attorney suggested a different format for the written decisions. The sample document will be forwarded when complete.

 

Cancel: December 19, 2007 & January 2, 2008.

 DRB meetings in January, 2008:  January 16, 2008 & January 30, 2008.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.