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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Stephen & Judith Selin, David Hilliard, William Andrus, Kathy Soulia, Daniel Hassan, Gwen Webster, Anne Hayes, Faith Emerson, John Hancock, Anne Hancock, Don Johnstone, Elizabeth Davis, Robert Rosane, Jean Rosane, Robert Murphy, Lauri Brown, Dorothy Penar, Chris Eling, Alfredo Acoy Cofino, Samantha Cofino, Ellen London, Gregg Beldock, Roger Dickinson, Mark Sperry, Rebecca Stearns, Peter Morris, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Wood Steps, 5166 Shelburne Road, Kenneth and Martha Wooden (DR07-26)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Renovations for Change of Use from Residential to Office, 61 Harbor Road, Stephen and Judith Selin (CU07-09 & SP07-05)

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

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

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

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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.

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant submitted a letter, dated 10/11/07, explaining a family health issue is the reason why no one is able to attend the hearing.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/7/07. John Adams stated the applicant needs new steps to the south entrance of their residence. The Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee (HP&DRC) recommended approval with the conditions as noted in the staff report.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Stephen and Judith Selin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Selin reviewed the site plan delineating the portion of the building owned by Selin and the portion of the building owned by Soulia as well as the adjacent land leased from the State of Vermont. A 20-year lease agreement for the adjacent state land has been submitted to the state for signature. Receipt of the signed document is anticipated at any time. The state indicated there are no problems with the lease.  Mr. Selin reviewed parking on the site. There will be four parking spaces where the fenced terrace is shown plus two additional parking spaces for Ms. Soulia. The limit of a maximum of two employees as noted in the staff report is problematic in that presently there are two employees (Stephen and Judith Selin) and the desire in the future is to possibly hire family members or others.  Also, eight parking spaces are being provided per the requirements so the number of employees should not be limited to two. Mr. Selin noted new windows will be installed on the Selin portion of the building which will house an architectural office and single bedroom apartment as a rental unit.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/7/07. John Adams explained the condition on the number of employees was added to limit intensity of use due to the parking uncertainty, especially in consideration of potential future business uses on the site.  Staff did not realize the condition was not acceptable to the applicant and after further consideration the condition could be changed to read: “As long as an adequate arrangement is made so parking is provided for the use then the use can be permitted.”  Parking for customers was mentioned. Steve Selin pointed out the parking requirement is being met per the regulations by providing eight parking spaces and there is other suitable parking nearby (on the adjacent state land by the train station). Also, the neighboring property owner has offered two parking spaces on their property if needed.  Dick Elkins commented many other applications for development in the village have identified the parking by the railroad station as additional parking for their use so eventually there will not be any additional parking available.  Reg Gignoux suggested language be added to the condition on parking directing the applicant to inform the town if the lease is not renewed (after 20 years).  There was further discussion of parking and the change in the zoning regulations pertaining to waiver of parking by the DRB (Section 1670.1). The applicant noted Selin and Soulia are jointly entering into the parking lease with the state. Peter Gibbs calculated 10 parking spaces are needed for the building (eight spaces for Selin and two for Soulia) and the applicant is providing four spaces not five spaces which equates to a waiver of 60%. The regulation only allows a 50% waiver.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the floor area of the building. Mr. Selin stated there is 2,700 s.f. with the second floor which will be removed (as part of the renovations) leaving about 1,800 s.f. in the building.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Kathy Soulia stressed the desire is to have safe, accessible parking that is not to be taken away and the plan provides this. Also, the aesthetics are an outstanding improvement to the building and grounds.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Alfredo Acoy and Samantha Hadler Cofino appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Samantha Cofino addressed outstanding issues, noting the septic allocation is fine for the 21-seat restaurant. Also, the business will not generate significant traffic relative to the numbers in the traffic analysis done by the CCMPO (traffic generation will be less than a quarter of the threshold in the analysis). There will be an outside dumpster located by the garage rather than collecting and holding food waste inside the building. Hours of operation are planned to be 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. There was brief discussion of opening earlier.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/7/07.  John Adams said he has not seen the location of the dumpster on the site. Regarding traffic the scale of the project will not have much impact on existing traffic or the congestion that is there now. Twelve trips in the morning peak hour are anticipated from the business and this is not near the threshold to require a traffic study.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if the dumpster will be screened, suggesting the existing stockade fencing be continued to hide the dumpster from view. Ms. Cofino stated the dumpster cannot be seen from the road. There is some existing vegetation that provides screening, but if it is necessary the fence can be continued. Reg Gignoux suggested screening be installed within six months after the restaurant is open for business.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about use of the garden area in the back of the lot for additional parking if necessary. The applicant indicated walking or biking to the restaurant will be encouraged rather than driving. Also, there is public parking in the area.  Mr. Gibbs noted the applicant is requesting a waiver for parking. The restaurant will be serving breakfast and lunch so there will not be competition for parking with other restaurants serving dinner. Also, there is the garden area if necessary for additional parking.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

Reg Gignoux stated the DRB would like to continue the hearing until after discussion is held with the Town Attorney. Opportunity for discussion has not happened due to paperwork being exchanged between the applicant’s attorney and the town’s attorney.

 

Mark Sperry stated his dismay at receiving the memo from Dean Pierce (dated 11/1/07) on Friday afternoon, November 2, 2007 after numerous staff reports and hearings where the issue(s) mentioned in the memo were not raised.  The third condition in the 2003 Zoning Board decision says “...approval by the Zoning Board for any increase in the number of units or change in use”, recalled Mr. Sperry, and the applicant relied on the condition for the increase in the number of units in the PRD.

 

Gregg Beldock stated if it is important for the DRB to have additional knowledge from the Town Attorney, then the hearing should be continued to a later date. The project has been described by one resident as a “slam dunk”, continued Mr. Beldock, and it is difficult to understand why at the last minute the administrative office in the Town of Shelburne is making a last minute decision. Mr. Beldock said he is perturbed by the project having to be delayed for the 26^th month. Mr. Beldock noted he was asked by an individual why he did not go forward with the changes to the project as discussed, and the reply was it was felt the project was being “road blocked”.

 

Dick Elkins suggested the DRB grant the courtesy of hearing comments from the people who made an effort to attend the 11/7/07 meeting.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/7/07, and a memo from Dean Pierce, dated 11/1/07.

 

Mark Sperry provided the DRB with a copy of the traffic report from Roger Dickinson (the report was given to the DRB by staff at the 11/7/07 meeting). Peter Morris noted a response to Chief Wooster’s report has been submitted. There was question of whether the DRB received the report. Mr. Morris will resubmit the document.  Mark Sperry stated an inventory and check list will be drafted to ensure the DRB has all submittals.  New photographs of the proposal were submitted to the DRB at the 11/7/07 meeting.

 

Rebecca Stearns requested the application be on an earlier agenda (before 12/5/07) if any way possible in light of the team being prepared for the 11/7/07 meeting and the last minute correspondence and complications on the part of the town.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Anne Hancock, Shelburne Bay Senior Living, listed former residences prior to coming to Shelburne Bay a year ago (the Hancocks lived in Charlotte, Proctor, South Burlington, Burlington). Ms. Hancock spoke in support of the living arrangements, services, and other residents at Shelburne Bay, stressing the need for places like Shelburne Bay where independent and assisted living is made possible. There is a waiting list for the assisted living units. Ms. Hancock stated the population needs to think ahead and plan for senior housing which will be needed one day.

 

John Hancock, Shelburne Bay Senior Living, pointed out the residents at Shelburne Bay do not add school children to the school system.

 

Dorothy Penar, 131 Wild Rose Circle, expressed concern about the design of the building and roof shape (mansard), opining the building looks too much like a strip mall with decoration on top. Ms. Penar suggested a gable roof to enhance the residential character, noting the building is a stark massing on the west side. Breaking up the mass of the building by giving the building different depths would be helpful. People are walking in the area so a nice mix of commercial and residential is welcomed. Ms. Penar felt a better job with the architectural design to fit into the character of the area could be done.  Gregg Beldock commented the building design was done to his liking.  Peter Morris pointed out the building ridge is two feet higher than the Shelburne Bay building. The Travelodge is 22’ higher. Pictures have been taken from the west and the building is unobtrusive. Reg Gignoux suggested the pictures be submitted to staff for inclusion in the board packets for the 12/5/07 meeting.

 

Ellin London, Wake Robin resident, agreed with the need for elderly housing, but felt the proposed building will change the entrance to Shelburne. Ms. London felt the building is hideous, massive, and city like. Shelburne is still a town.  A gentleman in the audience interjected most people do not even know Shelburne Bay Senior Living is there (because the building is not seen from Route 7).

 

Anne Hayes, Shelburne Bay Senior Living, said she lives in an assisted living unit with her husband and is grateful to be able to have him home with her rather than in a nursing home. Ms. Hayes stressed senior housing is a need that will keep happening. Shelburne Bay is a lovely place to live. The care is very, very good. People have quality in their lives. Ms. Hayes spoke in support of the assisted living facility.

 

Faith Emerson, Shelburne Bay Senior Living, spoke positively of her experience as a resident for the past 18 months and that she feels secure in her last years. The residents and staff are warm, friendly, and caring. Ms. Emerson encouraged the DRB to visit the facility to get a feel for the wonderful home it is.

 

Elizabeth Davis, Shelburne Bay Senior Living, stated the average age of residents at Shelburne Bay is 87 years. Ms. Davis who is 92 years old questioned where she will go when she needs assisted living since there is a waiting list for the assisted living units. Reg Gignoux agreed Shelburne Bay type institutions are needed and Gregg Beldock and his staff do a marvelous job for residents, but that is not the issue before the DRB.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

The DRB received a copy of the letter from Bernie Gagnon, dated 10/29/07, regarding minor modification to allow the use of six inches of gravel rather than sand in the pavement cross section.

 

The DRB received a copy of the letter from Paul Bohne, dated 10/30/07, regarding approval of the location of the sewer easement.

 

Reg Gignoux signed the document.

 

The DRB signed the findings and decisions for the Van Wagenan and Lake Champlain Housing Development applications.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs, Kay Kraushaar, Dick Elkins, Jim Washburn. (Reg Gignoux and Claude LaPierre were absent.)

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jeremy Matosky, Kathy Soulia, Sean Crumb, Marshall Webb, Steve Smith, Howard Seaver, Ron Lyon, Jennifer Peck, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Sign, 5689 Shelburne Road, Eugene Spitzer and Donald Randall (DR07-27)

·        Subdivision Review, Relocate Building Envelope, 1260 Pond Road, Eric and Deborah Morris (SUB03-04R1)

·        Conditional Use Review, Modify Noncomplying Structure (barn), 928 Mt. Philo Road, Kerry Vatis (CU07-12)

·        Conditional Use Review, Expand Mudroom, 176 Hullcrest Road, Jennifer Peck (CU07-13)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Store, Gas Station, Restaurant, Executive Drive, Jolley Associates (CU01-14 & SP03-05)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Change of Use to Office, 61 Harbor Road, Judith and Stephen Selin (CU07-09 & SP07-05)

In the absence of Reg Gignoux, Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Changes to the agenda were reviewed.

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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.

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/28/07. John Adams stated the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC) reviewed and approved the application with the stipulation the sign is not illuminated.  The property is located on Shelburne Road across from the Shelburne Museum. Dick Elkins asked about the frame of the sign being included in the size calculation. Dean Pierce referred to Section 1680.1.B which says supporting structure of a sign is excluded (in the size calculation). Peter Gibbs questioned if the size of the letters (5”) is appropriate. Dean Pierce recalled in the past legibility was a concern, but letter size was not mentioned in the review of the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/28/07. It was noted there was a problem in the notification of abutting property owners. Staff is recommending continuing the application review until January 16, 2008.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jeremy Matosky, 68 Summerfield Road, stated he is in the process of working out some concerns about the proposal with the applicant and hopes to have the matter resolved by the next meeting.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENT

The applicant submitted a letter explaining they could not attend the meeting due to professional reasons.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/28/07. John Adams noted an email from Larry Donna, VTrans, dated 11/21/07, was received stating agreement to a 20 year lease of 3,000 s.f. of land (30’x 100’ strip) for the parking spaces presented in the site plan.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Kathy Soulia, neighbor, noted land for two parking spaces for her residence are included in the lease. The actual lease has not yet been received, only a letter of intent from VTrans. A homeowners association will be formed for the leased land. Ms. Soulia asked if she is responsible for any of the landscaping on the site plan. John Adams explained the Selin application does not involve the Soulia property. With applications, the DRB can require that three percent of the cost of the project is directed toward landscaping. Regarding the lease, the letter of intent does include space for two parking spaces for the Soulia property, and Condition #4 of the approval indicates the lease must be in hand or a permit will not be provided to the applicant.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

The meeting was recessed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.

 

Jennifer Peck appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Jennifer Peck explained the proposal to extend the existing front entryway by eight feet. The addition will include a second floor.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/28/07. John Adams stated the existing mudroom encroaches into the front yard setback by two and a half feet. The addition will add eight feet in length to the mudroom. The encroachment into the setback will not be increased (i.e. the building will still be 2.5’ in the setback). Peter Gibbs calculated there will be a total of 20 s.f. in the setback with the proposed addition. Dean Pierce pointed out the regulations allow extending along the plane of the encroachment, but not increasing the encroachment unless a variance is granted.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Attorney Howard Seaver stated the gas station, store, and restaurant were the original plan submitted for review (this plan is grandfathered), but now a different plan incorporating the comments from the DRB has been submitted. In the new plan the restaurant is eliminated, the building is the same size but oriented differently on the site, and other changes.  If the newly submitted plan is not acceptable, continued Mr. Seaver, then the original plan will be submitted in an appeal to the court if necessary.  Peter Gibbs asked for clarification of what is being reviewed (i.e. the plan recently presented with some changes in elevation and such). Mr. Seaver stated the DRB is reviewing the new plan and it is hoped there is consensus of approval, then the applicant will not appeal. If someone else appeals the (new) plan, the applicant will deal with the matter, and it is felt the court will understand what transpired. The applicant is willing to take the risk. If the new plan is denied then technically the denial would be of the old plan (grandfathered plan) and that is what would be appealed to the court by the applicant.  Dean Pierce observed the sole reason for the approach by the applicant is to reserve appeal rights rather than demonstrate any particular affinity. Mr. Seaver conceded the applicant would prefer to be able to appeal the new plan because it is felt the new plan would be more attractive to the judge, but this is not likely so the appeal would be based on the old plan. Dean Pierce stated staff processed the application consistent with the original proposal to avoid the situation where the town might claim the plan changed and the town could reject the application. Previously it was established that the applicant could make application under the old regulations (1995). It could be argued that the plan has been changed as a result of the Route 7 project. There is a distinction between not changing the plan or not changing much to present before the DRB and responding to the Board’s clear signals about improvements that are desired, and reacting in a way that demonstrates in good faith to present the revised plan which in fact becomes the application and replaces the earlier plan, and if there is an appeal, the revised plan is the preferred plan. That plan is the starting point.

 

Dick Elkins stated if the application is denied, the denial applies to what was warned. If the Board makes an approval, the approval will be the application as specified.  Howard Seaver concurred.

 

Sean Crumb, Jolley Associates, reviewed the changes to the site plan to include orienting the building parallel to Shelburne Road, changing the dimensions somewhat while maintaining the same square footage, maintaining the same amount of impervious area but redistributing it around the site, decreasing parking in front from 18 spaces to eight spaces and adding six parking spaces along the southern portion of the building and three employee parking spaces on the southeast corner of the building, designating an unloading zone on the north end of the building, repositioning the three fuel pumps (six fueling positions) to the rear of the building, redistributing the landscaping on the site (the same number of trees will be planted), moving the landscape wall to the east closer to the building, having access off Executive Drive, moving the underground gas tanks to the east side of the property for ease of delivery, and having entryways on both the east and west sides of the building (walk-thru effect).  There was discussion of traffic circulation with one entrance/exit to the site. Mr. Crumb stated there are on-going discussions for a potential second access onto the Almartin property. Dean Pierce pointed out the lot coverage would have to be decreased if there is a second access which is included in the lot coverage calculation.  There was discussion of having one-way circulation versus two-way circulation which is proposed.  There was mention of car lights impacting nearby residences to the south of the site.  It was noted the building is set back 180’ from Shelburne Road; the setback is based on lot coverage.

 

Elevations of the building were shown. Peter Gibbs asked if the originally proposed canopy is being replaced with a dormer. Mr. Crumb stated there is now a vestibule on the building. Mr. Gibbs asked about a sign on the building. Mr. Crumb said signage has not yet been proposed except for a free standing sign on Shelburne Road.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 11/28/07, and a memo from Dean Pierce, dated 11/21/07.  Dean Pierce asked about the building in North Ferrisburg compared to the proposed building.  The building in North Ferrisburg is 3,024 s.f (72’x 40’) and the proposed building is 3,858 s.f (80’x 40’). The pitch of the roof is steeper on the proposed building and it is 14’ from the ground to the overhang of the roof.  Steve Smith stated it was thought a two-story building would be more appropriate on the site. Mr. Seaver pointed out the building in North Ferrisburg is perpendicular to Route 7, not parallel as the proposed building is to Shelburne Road.

 

Peter Gibbs spoke in support of seeking a second access to the site and decreasing the pavement amount which could result in a change in the setback. Mr. Gibbs asked about the six seat deli. Sean Crumb stated other Jolley operations have similar delis (Mobile North on Shelburne Road has three tables each with two seats set off to the side by the windows in the convenience store).

 

Dean Pierce asked about lighting. Sean Crumb stated a formal lighting plan will be submitted. Steve Smith stated there will be some lighting (recessed and downcast light). Ron Lyon added some lighting is needed for safety purposes. Details will be provided at the next review.  The number of windows has been decreased on the building so there will be less overflow lighting from inside to outside. Bollards to light the walkways are acceptable. There could also be lights in the planter downcast to light the sidewalk.

 

There was discussion of parking, particularly spaces #3-#10 shown on the site plan. Concern was expressed for pedestrian safety on the site and traffic congestion with two-way traffic circulation.  Dick Elkins suggested the parking be behind the building by the gas pumps and the building moved closer to Route 7. The applicant will take the comments under consideration.

 

Dean Pierce asked for confirmation that the restaurant use is removed and replaced with a deli so the space for the restaurant will now be occupied by the convenience store in which there will be a deli with three tables and six seats (i.e. the food activity is accessory to the convenience store so there are two uses rather than three uses on the site). Howard Seaver stated under the 1995 regulations it does not make a different if there are three or two uses on the site. There will not be a 52-seat restaurant, but there will be a convenience store including a deli and three tables. Parking was based on one space per 200 s.f. for the convenience store and one space per two seats for the deli.  Steve Smith clarified if the seating is removed and the convenience store made sandwiches that would be one use.  There was further discussion of the number of uses on the site. Dean Pierce asked if there is concurrence the application still includes three uses. Howard Seaver agreed technically there are three uses if the tables remain, but the third use is vastly truncated.

 

Dean Pierce asked if the sidewalk across the pavement to the entryway will be concrete or textured. Sean Crumb stated concrete or striping can be done. Mr. Pierce asked about patterned brick on the façade. Steve Smith stated there is two tone brick, but the façade is not offset.

 

John Adams asked about a dumpster. Mr. Crumb stated a dumpster can be added to the plan in an appropriate area. Dick Elkins asked if the pump area will have overhead light poles. Mr. Krumb stated there will be pole mounted lights with cutoff fixtures.  Lighting and dumpster information will be provided. Also, discussion will continue on the additional access. Peter Gibbs urged having a second access which will allow reconsideration of circulation, parking, and the setback. Jim Washburn added the circulation pattern must be clearly marked to avoid congestion.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

The DRB signed the document(s) for the Cofino application.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.