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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Chuck Dunham, Leigh Sheppard, Gregg Beldock, Ellen McShane, Paul Boisvert, Phil Tamalle, Rebecca Stearns, John Hancock, Anne Hancock, Chris Eling, Jared Gange, Mark Sperry, Peter Morris, Roger Dickinson, Steve Feldman, Marian Feldman, Gerald Francis, Gwen Webster, Dorothea Penar, Kathy Handy, Edward Haggarty, Bruce and Sara Beeken, Clint West, Mike Kriesel, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Subdivision Review, Boundary Line Adjustment, 291 and 293 Ordway Shore Road, Marian and Stephen Feldman (SUB07-06)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Barber Shop, 40 Shelburne Shopping Park, Dunham (CU05-01R1 & SP96-8R2)

·        Conditional Use & Subdivision Review, Assisted Living Units, 2522 Shelburne Road, Shelburne Bay Senior Living (CU07-10 & SUB98-06R4)

·        Subdivision Review, Two Lots, 197 Mt. Philo Road, West (SUB07-07)

Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:05 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.

 

Chuck Dunham appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chuck Dunham explained the plan by Leigh Sheppard for a barber shop in the village area. The space leased by Vitamin Connection will be used. There will be interior separation of the barber shop and office space within the building. No outside renovations are planned.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/5/07. John Adams reported the use is allowed and permitted in the district. There will be a decrease in demand for parking. Any signs and exterior renovations need design review.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the Board.

 

Marian and Stephen Feldman appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Marian Feldman explained the adjustment will allow the driveway to be on their property.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/5/07. John Adams noted the application is a minor boundary line adjustment. Shelburne does not have a procedure for a boundary line adjustment so the application is reviewed under the subdivision process. The applicant submitted a legal memo from Stuart Bennett, dated 10/15/07, regarding the pre-existing nonconforming lots. According to the opinion, the lot under discussion retains its nonconforming status. Staff did not seek a legal opinion on the application from the Town Attorney. This has been done in the past with other cases and the opinion was the lots would no longer be ‘pre-existing’. The Feldman application is different due to physical features of the lot and only three-quarters of an acre are involved. **Less than 1/20^th of an acre.**

 

Dick Elkins expressed concern about setting a precedent, and suggested a land swap or perpetual easement of some sort be executed rather than a boundary line adjustment. Marian Feldman explained the neighbor is in agreement with the adjustment and there are no changes to what exists on the site. The adjustment will alleviate encumbrances on the property so it can be sold at some point. The relationship with the neighbor is copasetic, but if a new neighbor moves in that may not be the case.  Peter Gibbs noted the driveway is an existing physical feature (been there since 1957) and the neighbors assumed the boundary line was located where shown on the application for the adjustment. The application is correcting an ambiguity.  The Board concurred the existing nonconforming lots would remain even with the minor change (boundary adjustment).

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Gregg Beldock, Mark Sperry, Peter Morris, Roger Dickinson, and Rebecca Stearns appeared on behalf of the application.  The DRB received a copy of a letter from the Town Attorney, Steve Stitzel, dated 12/5/07. Chairman Gignoux explained the process relative to “interested party” status. Interested parties were identified, including neighbor Gerald Francis and town residents, Gwen Webster and Dorothea Penar. Attorney Sperry argued an interested party is someone owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood. The DRB makes the determination if an individual has interested party status. John Adams clarified the DRB makes the determination of party status in appeals. **Judge in E-Court** Residents can make comment on an application after comment from interested parties. The rules of procedure regarding interested party status were read (Page 5, Item F of the Rules of Procedure).

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Attorney Sperry reported recalculation of the Ponderosa property revealed the lot is 2.05 acres. The correction will be noted in the next set of plans.  Gregg Beldock showed a rendering of the building (view from the entryway to Shelburne) with a mansard roof, articulated parapet, and a combination of the two, demonstrating the comments made on previous drawings of the building were taken into consideration.  Landscaping and the greenscape of the project at the entryway to the town were reviewed.  The building does not affect the character of the neighborhood, stated Mr. Beldock, adding the building is barely visible from the roadway.  Regarding comments that the building is too big for the surrounding area, of eight properties (shown in an aerial photograph), the proposed building is the smallest at 16,000 s.f. with the exception of the Foreign Car Parts building which is 8,000 s.f. The Artec building is 20,000 s.f. as is the Travelodge. The bowling alley is 16,000 s.f., the lumber yard is 61,500 s.f. and the existing Shelburne Bay facility is 46,000 s.f. with the annex of 16,000 s.f. The legal opinion from the Town Attorney is in support of the project proceeding. It is difficult to define “assisted living” units, conceded Mr. Beldock, as the regulations indicate “group homes” as an approved use and the town’s counsel advises this definition is the closest to defining assisted living units per the regulations.  Mr. Beldock stated the request for conditional use approval under the guise of “similar uses” (that being “group homes”) as suggested by Steve Stitzel in a letter dated 11/29/07. Waste water allocation and trip generation are not greater for 54 assisted living units than for a group home. Also, there are fewer staff members for the assisted living units than for an eight unit group home.  Attorney Sperry calculated based on 3,500 s.f. per unit, there could be 25 independent units (apartments) in the building with approximately 50 residents and likewise with 54 assisted care units there will be 54 residents. Use of public services will be less for assisted living units than independent living units. Assisted living includes a room, bathroom, communal dining room, church services, recreation area, shuttle bus service, and staff to ensure medication is taken and other basic needs are met.  Gregg Beldock mentioned the Converse House in Burlington decided their density was 4:1 meaning four bedrooms equates to one apartment unit. There are 26 assisted living units now at Shelburne Bay and 65 independent living units with 80 residents in the independent units. Only 11 to 14 of the apartments are occupied by couples. Independent living units range in size from 745 s.f. to 1,240 s.f. Assisted care units are up to 650 s.f. in size. Memory care units are smaller.  Independent living units with two residents have a bedroom and a den which could be used as a second bedroom. A number of couples are split with one living in the independent unit and the other living in an assisted care or memory impaired unit.  With the proposed assisted care units, 54 residents would be added to the community at Shelburne Bay for an approximate total of 180 residents. The density (54 units) is needed in order for the situation to be palatable, said Mr. Beldock.

 

Jim Washburn commented on the apparent perception the DRB does not believe in the mission of the applicant, clarifying everyone supports senior housing, however, the DRB is charged with ensuring development in town is under control and proper. Gregg Beldock noted the regulations allow a larger building with 25 apartment units on the site. The town’s attorney suggested there be parameters and limitations in place to satisfy concerns of the DRB, such as limiting the number of occupants in a small apartment to two people. Mr. Beldock said a condition stating no more than two occupants in 50 of the 54 units would be acceptable.  Lot coverage with the proposal is 14%. The regulations allow 40%. The town attorney suggested there be a maximum lot coverage ratio. Mr. Beldock stated his willingness to agree to 15% maximum lot coverage for the proposal.  Dick Sperry said he wrote a letter to Steve Stitzel suggesting building coverage not exceed 15%.  Reg Gignoux commented the type of units under discussion need to be addressed before focusing on lot coverage.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/5/07, and a memo from Dean Pierce, dated 11/30/07.

 

Dick Elkins stated the aesthetics and traffic generation by the proposal are not insurmountable issues, but the density should be set using 3,500 s.f. until the regulations are changed. Peter Gibbs pointed out the existing mix of assisted, independent, and memory care units at Shelburne Bay Living are based on 3,500 s.f./unit, and that formula produced the existing campus style development and amenities.  The current application is for a density double the existing campus for similar uses. Even if the development were spread over the total acreage (over 11 acres), the density is still not near the 3,500 s.f. per unit base for the existing development.  Kay Kraushaar noted positive comments from residents of Shelburne Bay were made based on the existing density (3,500 s.f.). Higher density could provide a different experience. Reg Gignoux observed the project is the same uses, but different style. Mr. Gignoux had concern for the density and the building encroaching upon the original campus when the understanding with the previous permit was there would be no increased use of the area. Mr. Gignoux felt the building should be smaller and not encroach upon the existing campus. There is a distinct difference between assisted care and elderly residential use, continued Mr. Gignoux, and the Planning Commission is addressing this distinction which will make it easier to approve the Shelburne Bay project. In the interim the existing rules and regulations must be followed. Jim Washburn stated the proposed building is big and monolithic compared to the colonial style building on the site. Residents will see a change in view and the place will be busier with more people living there.

 

 

Deliberative Session was convened at 8:20 p.m. Chairman Gignoux reconvened the regular meeting at 8:35 p.m.

 

Gregg Beldock announced an amendment to the conditional use application in light of density being an issue. The number of units will be reduced to 25 independent living units or housing for the elderly. The building will remain the same (no exterior changes though there will likely be interior changes). The tunnel will remain in the plans. Traffic generation will not change. Less parking will be required (one space per unit).  There are 27 parking spaces shown on the plans presently. Dick Sperry pointed out the intensity of the use is being decreased and the project will be in compliance with the regulations (25 independent housing units for the elderly per the definition in the ordinance). None of the impacts are being changed so the application is not new though the DRB must determine this.  Dean Pierce confirmed the DRB has discretion to consider the proposed amendment to the application. Roger Dickinson stated new numbers for water, waste water and traffic will be submitted. There may be some change, but the level of service will remain at “B”. Following further discussion, there was agreement the applicant will submit information pertaining to the amendment of the conditional use application, including traffic generation showing level of service, revised water and sewer requirements to demonstrate there is adequate capacity, accurate acreage shown on the plan (2.05 acres for the Ponderosa), and parking. Scheduling a special meeting to take action on the conditional use amendment was discussed.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dorothea Penar, Wild Rose Circle, recalled the applicant’s previous statements of the need for assisted living units as the goal of the proposal and now the application is switching to independent living units. Ms. Penar asked if there will be switch back to assisted care units in the new building or the existing building in the future. Gregg Beldock stated there could be a change when the bylaws change, but changes to the existing and new buildings will be made with DRB approval. Ms. Penar opined the building needs to look more residential. The long eastern elevation should be broken up to look less commercial/institutional. Ms. Penar noted she has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and has enjoyed the senior housing that is there. Ms. Penar added she is interested in what happens in the neighborhood, that is why she was involved in the (railroad crossing) quiet zone.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, stated the character of the area is very important and applies to the building, not the use. There seems to be some problems with the building and the ‘great façade’ at the gateway to Shelburne. Ms. Webster felt the building looks like a prison and institutional. Peter Morris noted the building is 309’8” long. The ridge is two feet above that of Shelburne Bay and 22’ below the ridge of the Travelodge.

 

Gerald Francis, Pine Haven Shores, spoke in support of the project, citing the operation of Shelburne Bay which does not generate traffic or congestion. Traffic in the area is from trucks going to other buildings. Mr. Francis also spoke of the need to support the elders in the town and the building as proposed.  Gregg Beldock stated the design of the building is two years in the making. The building cannot be seen from Route 7 and does not affect the character of the area. Residents (of Shelburne Bay) like the facility. The new building enhances the campus effect. The comments made are from people who are entitled to their opinion, but the project is good for the town. Peter Morris offered to show the buildings in the area and how the proposed building fits in beautifully. The western exposure has natural vegetation which mitigates the scale of the building.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Clint West and Mike Kriesel appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Clint West explained the proposal to subdivide the existing 31,800 s.f. lot per village regulations. The new lots will be 12,500 s.f. The proposed 25’ right-of-way is not included in the lot size. Mr. West mentioned there have been discussions with Bruce and Sara Beeken (neighbors) about an adjoining right-of-way for possible future subdivision on the Beeken property.

 

Peter Gibbs observed the right-of-way is on lot #1 and the driveway for lot #2 is in the easement on lot #1. Reg Gignoux calculated the square footage of the front lot will be nearly 20,000 s.f. including the right-of-way.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 12/5/07. John Adams stated notices sent to abutting property owners did not contain correct address information. The error has been corrected and notices will be sent for final plan review or the DRB can opt to re-warn the hearing for sketch plan review.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if there are topographic or physical constraints on the property. The applicant said there are not.

 

The applicant was urged to address as much detail with the application as possible, such as identifying the building envelope, screening, drainage, curb cut, and the driveway.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Bruce Beeken, neighbor, stated it was recognized coordinating efforts with Mr. West with regard to subdividing lots would be positive for the neighborhood. There is urgency to pursue the subdivision before the zoning change. It was noted the West application is on file under existing regulations.

 

Kathy Handy, neighbor, expressed concern about car lights, impact on privacy, and drainage problems in the area being exacerbated by additional development.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

Approval of the 11/28/07 minutes was postponed until the next regular meeting.

 

The DRB signed the document(s) for the Peck and Selin applications.

 

 

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

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Gregg Beldock, Mark Sperry.

Reg Gignoux called the special meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. and swore in those individuals to give testimony before the Development Review Board.

 

Gregg Beldock and Mark Sperry appeared on behalf of the application. Gregg Beldock stated after further consideration and confirmation of the need for additional assisted care units the request for amendment to allow 25 independent living units is withdrawn and the original application is reinstated with the understanding the density issue will be addressed at a future point in time.  Mark Sperry added a letter has been submitted stating no amendment to the original proposal and noting the following three conditions:

1.                  The unit building coverage shall be limited to 15%. The coverage now is slightly greater than 13% so 15% will allow flexibility if there are mandates to build structures such as enclosing the solid waste container.

2.                  There shall be no more than 200 residents.

3.                  There shall be no more than 125 parking spaces.

Attorney Sperry noted his letter of 11/2/07 on density and equivalency has been resubmitted to the DRB. Also, Roger Dickinson did the calculations on acreage and the site has 11.04 acres. The Ponderosa lot is 2.03 acres.  Mr. Sperry requested the DRB think about how the project can be done per the regulations.

 

Gregg Beldock apologized for the special meeting when nothing has really changed with the application. Waiting for zoning changes to address the density issue will not be a service to the residents. Assisted living units are needed now. Shelburne Bay has approvals for 47 assisted living units which are referred to as “dwelling units” in the bylaws. There will be 112 units at build out. Memory impaired units have no kitchen or separate bedroom. The 14 memory impaired units are considered one dwelling unit by state statute. Mr. Beldock said he is willing to limit the new assisted living units to 41 (54 units minus 13 memory impaired units) knowing the memory impaired units are one, not 14 separate units.  Forty-one units will be a slight density bonus which the DRB can provide.  Mark Sperry added of the 47 assisted living units 26 plus one or 27 are already built so only 20 units need to be built.

 

Jim Washburn expressed confusion by all the numbers being quoted and requested a written report on the criteria and change being requested. Mr. Washburn wanted information on what zoning allows, density based on the building and number of residents, lot coverage by the building and parking lot, square footage of each unit, square footage of assisted care unit for an individual and for a couple, and what the state has approved. Gregg Beldock pointed out the information requested by Mr. Washburn has already been submitted. Approvals have been received for 14 memory impaired units.  Mark Sperry stated his letter of November 2, 2007 which was resubmitted contains the information Mr. Washburn is seeking. Mr. Sperry agreed to submit a summary of application and materials provided to the town to date.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked under what category assisted care units fall in the zoning regulations. Mark Sperry stated Section 830.22 – Other Similar Use.  This information is also contained in the 11/2/07 letter. Town Attorney, Steve Stitzel, agreed the definition of elderly housing/dwelling unit includes complete house facilities (kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living room). Assisted care units do not meet this definition.

 

Dean Pierce noted receipt of two letters, one from Marty Gold and one from The Residents of Shelburne Senior Bay Loving.  Dick Elkins commented on the letter just received where objection was taken to his apology for not reading all materials prior to the meeting of which documents stacking nearly an inch high were received the night of the meeting. Gregg Beldock assured their information is submitted before the weekend prior to the meeting at the latest. There was brief discussion of receiving materials in a timely manner.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.