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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Richard Hamlin, Robert Perry, Paul Roche, Matt Wamsganz, Bill Supple, Maureen O’Brien, Becky Ramsey, Susan O’Brien, Tim Eustace, Jan Hollyer, Ann Roche, Ellen McShane, Rose Garritano.

·        Design Review, Sign, 92 Church Street, St. Catherine of Sienna Parish (DR08-02)

·        Site Plan, Conditional Use & Variance Review, Conversion of Warehouse to Retail Space & Sign, 2438 Shelburne Road, Mammut Sports Group (SP94-2R1&CU/V08-02)

·        Appeal of Decision, Abandoned Structure, 715 Bay Road, Hansen/Wong (A08-01)

·        Subdivision Review, 22 Lots, 899 Barstow Road, O’Brien Family Farm (SUB93-3R1)

In the absence of Chairman Gignoux, Peter Gibbs 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.

 

Peter Gibbs noted review of the application has been postponed.

 

Matt Wamsganz, Tim Eustace, Bill Supple, and Bob Perry appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Wamsganz explained the conversion of the warehouse space is due to the sale of the building and the new owner seeking more retail space. The existing building has been there for the past 20 years. There are no parking, traffic circulation, or landscape issues. The lights on the power poles in front of the building will be removed. The floodlights illuminating the sign will remain. Nothing will change to the exterior of the site. There will be interior changes only.  Regarding the sign, in 1988 the existing sign was approved. At that time the property line around the building was the recognized boundary and the sign was in conformance. In the 1990s, VTrans established the state right-of-way for the Route 7 improvements and determined a different legal boundary line which resulted in the sign being in the setback and being nonconforming to the regulations.  The sign is significant, has a concrete base, and is not an issue for traffic circulation or sight distance. Also, the sign now being out of conformance is not out of character with other signs in the area. The lettering on the sign was changed by Climb High and the change in lettering was approved when the sign was no longer conforming. The lettering will again be changed to read: “Ann Roche Casual Furniture” which is to occupy the site. Regarding parking, per the regulations 57.5 parking spaces are required, but with the waiver only 46 spaces are needed and that is the number of parking spaces on the site currently which have worked well with Climb High. The furniture store will generate less need for parking. The traffic circulation as it exists will be maintained.  John Adams clarified the 20% parking waiver would apply to any retail use in the space, not just the proposed furniture use.

 

Matt Wamsganz stated in 1988 the main floor of the building was retail use with offices in the back. The bottom floor of the building was a wholesale use. Mammut Sports warehouse is now behind Almartin Volvo.  A permit was secured to change the first floor use from warehouse to a bike shop (the purpose was for retail use). The permit could not be located either in the town file or the owner’s file (permit issued on March 12, 1996, #9S96-91 was mentioned). The retail space grew beyond the original permit and in 2003 the bike shop was closed and the area returned to retail space as used in 1988. The store is now closed (since 1/13/08) pending sale. It was noted the ground floor use is 3,400 s.f. retail and 5,200 s.f. office/warehouse, and the first floor use is 5,225 s.f. retail and 2,975 s.f. office. There will be conversion of 4,625 s.f.

 

Tim Eustace further discussed the sign, noting the original permit was issued on 2/25/88. The stone base of the sign was installed in 1988. The sign at that time was not in the setback. In 2002 when VTrans condemned the land for the state right-of-way the sign then was in the setback. In 2006 a new sign was installed on top of the stone base. There are untold numbers of other signs on properties on Shelburne Road in violation of the 10’ setback due to the Route 7 improvement project by the state, including the Town of Shelburne welcome sign.  A variance application for the sign was submitted per the advice of staff, but it is not certain a variance is actually needed in this case, continued Mr. Eustace, since the sign is nonconforming due to VTrans taking land for the Route 7 project. Technically the sign is a pre-existing nonconforming sign and per Section 1680.5 of Shelburne’s regulations the sign can continue to be used as is.  Section 1810.5 defines alterations to a building or structure and structural elements. Section 1810.7 says a sign is considered a building or structure. Changing the lettering on a sign is not considered a structure change. The sign is not being enlarged and the nonconformity is not being increased. The sign is not being moved.  Section 1620.2 addresses nonconforming structure relative to being enlarged, extending or modified. The town can regulate these actions per state statute. Section 1680.12.B says the town can approve a sign. The regulations do not address the situation where the nonconformity is created by the taking of land by the state. Mr. Eustace stated the property owner was not compensated by the state for any sign issues.  The property owner wants to continue using the pre-existing nonconforming sign. Approval from the town will be sought for substantial changes to the sign.

 

Bob Perry, attorney representing Ann Roche, explained his client is moving her business from the east side of Route 7 to the larger store (Climb High building) on the west side. The shape or size of the sign on the site will not be changed.  The “Climb High” sign will be replaced with a same sized sign for the Ann Roche furniture business so a variance is not needed. The variance criteria do not apply to the situation because there is a reasonable use of the property without a variance. In order to move the sign outside of the setback, the stone base would have to be destroyed and that is unreasonable.  The sign has been in its present location for the past 20 years. The stone base is the same stone as on the building (the climbing wall).  Most every sign along Route 7 is in the setback. Only the Rice Lumber sign appears to be in compliance.

 

Dick Elkins disagreed with the opinions of the applicant’s attorneys, stating the sign is nonconforming and requires a variance. The criterion regarding a pre-existing condition not caused by the applicant warrants a variance. Tim Eustace reiterated the intent is to preserve the sign. If the sign must be moved most likely the stone base will be destroyed. The only reason the sign is an issue is due to the state taking a strip of land in front of the building.  John Adams noted the newly proposed regulations allow modifications to signs as a Conditional Use (changes must be within the existing parameters of the sign).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/6/08.  John Adams pointed out past practice has been modification to a sign is considered a change. If the variance is granted then the sign will be administratively approved. If the variance is not granted the new regulations where a sign is a Conditional Use may be in place when the new owner comes in for a sign permit.

 

Dick Elkins questioned if the ground (flood) lights illuminating the sign meet current lighting standards for the town. Peter Gibbs suggested a condition of approval for the Conditional Use could be that lighting on the property shall conform to Shelburne’s regulations. It has been standard operating procedure with applications to make site lighting conform to existing regulations.  Bob Perry noted the sign is low and the lights are not bright. If lights are hung from the sign or above the sign, this will detract from the attractiveness of the sign.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Vince Paradis and Richard Hamlin, representing Chad Hansen and Joyce Wong who are currently teaching in Hong Kong, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Vince Paradis gave a brief history of the application. On October 26, 2007 a Conditional Use application was submitted to renovate the existing cottage at 715 Bay Road. The application was warned to be heard on 12/5/07, but the Zoning Administrator reviewed the application and issued a letter to Rick Hamlin stating the application was invalid and would not be heard by the Development Review Board because the cottage structure was abandoned. Vermont statutes say the Zoning Administrator can approve, deny or refer an application. The decision on the Hansen application occurred over 30 days after the application was filed. State statutes indicate action must occur within 30 days or the permit is deemed issued on the 31^st day.  Shelburne’s statutes with regard to issuance of a permit (Section 1701) say the Vermont Planning and Development Act is applicable. The applicant is entitled to comply with the regulations, file an application and be heard within a specific length of time or deemed an approval remedy. The matter before the Board is the applicant feels a permit to renovate the cottage was issued on November 27, 2007 and abandonment does not need to be addressed.  If the DRB makes an exception and says a permit will not be issued on the 31^st day, this sets a precedent and violates state statute. It was noted the letter dated December 18, 2007 from Vince Paradis is an appeal letter.

 

Dick Elkins asked if the position of the applicant is the right to apply to replace the structure. Vince Paradis clarified the position is the applicant has a permit to renovate the structure. Jim Washburn pointed out according to the minutes from a previous hearing the applicant agreed the structure had been abandoned. Mr. Paradis clarified the statement pertained to a variance application which was appealed to the Environmental Court in a de novo hearing. A new/different renovation proposal was made to the DRB.  Rick Hamlin explained when Mr. Hanson purchased the cottage he told the town what he would like to do at some point and was instructed to secure a permit when he was ready to do the work. Since that time Mr. Hanson’s work responsibilities required him to be transferred out of the country. When he returned and wanted to begin work on the cottage he was told to apply for a variance. Shelburne Zoning Board denied the variance and told Mr. Hanson he needed a Conditional Use permit. The Conditional Use application was denied as well. Both applications were appealed to Environmental Court. There are three lots combined per a stipulation of the permit. The applicant also owns property across the public road from the parcels under discussion. Peter Gibbs pointed out the original application that was denied was for a larger structure while the current application is for a renovation. Vince Paradis urged the Board to look beyond the legal argument and determine if the application provides a better situation for the town. Rick Hamlin noted the foundation and cottage structure is in the floodplain. The plan is to raise the foundation so the structure is out of the floodplain creating less impact than what currently exists.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the appeal, dated 2/6/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ellen McShane, 743 Bay Road, stated the property at 715 Bay Road has been abandoned for the past 10 years. No one has lived on the site since 1995 and Mr. Hanson himself has never lived at either property he owns. According to a life long resident on Bay Road the property owned by Mr. Hanson has been abandoned since 1993.  Ms. McShane asked if pollution issues have been considered should the property be renovated (i.e. septic and parked cars close to the lake).  Rick Hamlin addressed the matter of sewer explaining the cottage has a subsurface system, but a pump station will be installed and wastewater will be pumped to the municipal sewer line. There is also provision to allow the other Hanson lot across the street to connect on the line.  Other residences in the area may benefit from the sewer connection by sharing the line.  Ms. McShane stated the town is currently investigating putting the entire road on municipal sewer service. The issue will be discussed at the upcoming town meeting.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Stout reviewed minor corrections to the application (the changes will be submitted to staff). Mr. Stout also reviewed corrections to the project summary provided to the DRB. Changes include:

 

Mr. Stout stated the hydrant line is six inches and the plans will be corrected to reflect this. The plans have been revised per previous comments from past reviews by the DRB and the state. Information submitted to staff includes school impact from the proposed development (no impact anticipated because there is excess capacity in both the middle school and the high school), a letter from the Agency of Agriculture regarding preserving 66 acres of prime agricultural soil, information on the fire pond (when Beth Wardwell did maintenance on her pond, the hydrant line strainer and gate valve were installed for the development). A post-indicator valve will be installed at the hydrant once the hydrant is installed.  Each house will have a drilled well. The hydro-geologic study showed the use will be less than four percent of the water available in the area watershed.  Comments from the Fire Chief with regard to hydrant location, configuration of hydrant cap south into the turnaround and other recommendations will be followed. A six inch line provides 500 gallons per minute. The Fire Chief wanted 1,000 gallons per minutes (an 8” pipe) which is excessive for a dry hydrant.  Documentation from ISO refers to 250 to 500 gallons per minute as a maximum fire flow expected for a dry hydrant. ISO says the standard for one to two farm dwellings no greater than two-stories in height is 100’ between structures and 500 gallons per minute.  NRCS documents refer to 250 gallons per minute for a dry hydrant in a rural area.

 

There was discussion of the view corridor lines from individual house sites and different cutting restrictions. Potential development on Lot 21 was also discussed. Possible uses on the lot include a bed and breakfast, veterinarian office or horse stable. These uses cannot occur if the buildings are immediately adjacent to the planned high density development in South Burlington, stated Mr. Stout. Lot 21 is 30 acres so a house could be located in the center of the field. Owners of lots 21 and 22 must want to use the land and keep the land open.  Dick Elkins asked about commercial use on the lots. Mr. Stout stated there could be a combination of residential and limited commercial use as defined by the ordinance. Permitted uses include agricultural uses such as farming, dairy, orchards, nursery, a licensed daycare with up to six children, bed and breakfast with up to four rooms to rent, a state group or residential care home with up to eight residents with a handicap or disability per state regulation. Conditional uses on the site would need approval from the town.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the supplemental agriculture building envelope must meet setback requirements unless the Secretary of Agriculture waives the requirement.  PRD perimeter setback is 75’ and the supplemental agriculture building is shown within the setback. Mr. Stout confirmed the supplemental building envelope is between the house building envelope and the tree line (southern property line).  John Adams stated if a waiver is secured, then the building is allowed. The building is exempt from zoning including the PRD regulations because it is an agricultural building, but if this is a problem for the DRB the building will be eliminated, stated Mr. Stout.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about landscaping on lots 15-20 (the lot lines changed to coincide with wetlands on the west side). Mr. Stout reviewed the contour sheet. The road is behind the contour of the ridge and the houses are on the second ridge, pushed back as far as possible.  Homeowners can plant more trees. At least two trees must be in the front yard.  Lots 15-20 will change the way the field looks today. The density has been shifted from the east to the west side to be more consistent with other development on Dorset Street.  Lots 15, 16, 17 & 22 have a maximum house height of 25’. Lots 18, 19, & 20 have a maximum house height of 30’. The remainder of the lots have a maximum house height of 35’.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about an easement for a permanent pathway. Tony Stout stated there is a connector shown from Dunmikin Lane through any of lots 5-9 to the MBL Association (condominiums), but the O’Brien family is not in favor of a path nor is the condominium association (they are in favor of the buffer that is proposed).

 

Mr. Stout noted the green area shown on the plan has ecological value (limestone ledges, habitat areas). The Open Space Agreement preserves the view cone and the green space so the town is the enforcer.  The Nature Conservancy and the Vermont Land Trust are not interested in small parcels of land. UVM might consider the area as part of their drainage area. Mr. Stout will follow up with these organizations and their interest in the green space.  It was noted the Open Space Agreement references cutting rights in the deed covenants. Lots 10 & 11 can cut trees over 10’ tall in the wet areas to keep the area open to light and to keep the area wet.

 

Mr. Stout reviewed the view cone that allows view of Shelburne Pond. The Open Space Agreement dictates what can be done in the view cone (farming can be done, a driveway can be installed, the green area will remain as is, the town can enforce the cutting requirement of woody vegetation or do the work and charge the homeowner).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/6/08. Kay Kraushaar expressed concern about the building envelope on Lot 21 being in the middle of the field, and asked if the 300’ credit can be secured for agricultural soils if the envelope is relocated.  Tony Stout explained the width must be able to accommodate farming and farm equipment. Also, there is an existing tree line which will screen the building envelope. If the envelope is moved to the east there is a hollow (dip in the ground) which is not the most desirable house site. Neighbors pointed out the existing tree line is mainly scrub brush with only about six trees.  Kay Kraushaar wanted to review the covenants to ensure changes cannot be made by the homeowners. Tony Stout stated there are several approaches to ensure the covenants cannot be changed (qualify certain sections as untouchable, bind the document to the town’s document, or incorporate language in the Open Space Agreement).

 

Dick Elkins expressed concern about the owners of Lot 11 being allowed to cut trees on lots 12 & 13 (this may be creating problems for the town). Tony Stout explained the area is a wet meadow and the intent is to control trees growing there. There is language in the deed about cutting. Dick Elkins asked about a schedule for construction. Mr. Stout stated nothing has been proposed at this point, but it is estimated build out would be over 10 years.  Peter Gibbs noted phasing of the project has not been suggested by the applicant. Dick Elkins asked about the side yard setback for the barn on Lot 22. John Adams explained if the plat is approved as presented the structure cannot be built without a waiver from the state. Mr. Elkins mentioned the drainage easement in the open natural area and spoke in support of someone managing this area. Concern was also expressed for Lot 21 and development plans in South Burlington.

 

John Adams suggested the DRB hold a deliberative session and document the Board’s position to the applicant so the applicant can respond. Open issues for the DRB include phasing, addressing comments from the Fire Chief, investigating involvement by The Nature Conservancy or UVM with the green space, lighting, having the view cone in line with exhibits presented at Preliminary Plan approval, and potential screening on Lot 22.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jan Hollyer, corner of Barstow/Dorset/Cheesefactory Road, asked about impact on his septic system which is on property opposite his lot and the right-of-way he holds for grey water (there is language in the deed).  Mr. Stout assured the sewage easements are marked on the plat. Lot 21 is pre-existing. The bottom end of Common Land A is pre-existing. There is no intent to do anything with the grey water area and nothing is proposed for the house at 899 Barstow Road. Mr. Hollyer has the right to access the area shown on the plat. Mr. Hollyer mentioned the view cone, noting he has an unobstructed view of Mount Mansfield at this time.  There is an old barn foundation with weed trees growing in it, but Mr. O’Brien has allowed cutting over the years to maintain the view. The view cone should include this area as well, suggested Mr. Hollyer. Mr. Stout explained the intent is for the entire area to be open and free of trees. The homeowners will have to cut trees around the barn foundation.  Jan Hollyer mentioned the request to relocate his septic area. Maureen O’Brien clarified the request was to ensure the system is functioning and that an easement does exist for the system. Mr. Hollyer confirmed the system has been checked and is in fine working order. Mr. Hollyer stated he uses the entire property, doing blacksmithing, woodworking, and raising chickens in the past.  There is concern new neighbors will complain about these activities.  Mr. Stout confirmed there is “Right to Farm” language in the deed covenants which will allow Mr. Hollyer to continue his activities.

 

Rose Garritano, neighbor, stated the magnificent view will change with the planned house in the building envelope on Lot 22. Ms. Garritano stressed her plea that the O’Brien family conserve the land their mother wanted conserved. More trees should be planted. Significant evergreen plantings around the house will screen it from view.  Regarding Lot 21 and the agricultural credits, a narrow border is not wanted. Also, for agricultural purposes straight runs are preferred. The building envelope should not be located based on an assumption of what might happen on the land. Ms. Garritano suggested the building envelope be tucked up closer to the neighborhood in So. Burlington.  Tony Stout agreed a row of evergreen trees can be planted, but the view may be blocked as a result. It is best to keep the house low and tucked into the building envelope. A hedgerow along the road is another option for screening.

 

Neighbors asked about lighting and restrictions on glare. John Adams confirmed down shielded fixtures and no glare can be mandated by the DRB. Shelburne’s lighting requirements can be included in the conditions of approval (lighting standard to be met before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy).  Tony Stout noted there is language in the covenants requiring low level non-glare fixtures to avoid impact on neighbors.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Postponed.

 

The Board signed the document(s).

 

 

The meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 10:15 p.m.

 

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Oda Hubbard, Colleen Haag, Shawn Thomas, Andy and Brinn Perkins, Cecile Guillemette, Bernie Guillemette, Joanne Guillemette, Chris Galipeau, Dan Coolbeth, Charlie Peet, Gerry Guillemette, Ed Fitzpatrick, Mike Anderson, Scott Homsted, Thomas Koerner, Marge Sharp.

·        Subdivision Review, Four Lot PRD, 3946 Harbor Road, Thomas Koerner (SUB07-05)

·        Subdivision Review, Three Lots, 33 Thomas Rd., Shawn Thomas (SUB08-02)

·        Subdivision Review, Seven Lots, 61 Pond Road, API Properties, Inc., Michael Anderson (SUB04-10)

In the absence of Chairman Gignoux, Peter Gibbs 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.

 

Thomas Koerner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Tom Koerner explained the proposal to create two residential lots in addition to the existing two residential lots (total of four lots) as part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD). Harbor Road separates the two parcels in a north/south fashion. The proposal will separate the lots in an east/west fashion.  The existing house on the lake side portion of the land (Lot #1) has been there since 1950 and will remain. An accessory structure (to the existing house) will be added to the lot on the north end of the parcel (Lot #2). A residence is planned for the proposed lot on the south end of the land (Lot #3). A building envelope is shown on Lot #3. A building permit has already been secured for an accessory structure to the primary house on Lot #1. The accessory structure will be built on Lot #3 unless the proposed PRD is approved. If the PRD is approved then Lot #1 will have an accessory structure on Lot #2 and Lots #3 & #4 will contain one residence and one accessory structure in total (i.e. a residence on Lot #3 and an accessory structure on Lot #4 or vice versa).  The garage by the existing house will be removed. Mr. Koerner said he is willing to label Lot #2 for an accessory structure only, but is hesitant to do the same on Lot #4 because a prospective buyer may want their house on Lot #4 and the accessory structure on Lot #3.  John Adams explained an accessory structure to a primary residence on a separate lot is allowed in a PRD. Dean Pierce referred to Section 1810.1 and the definition of “accessory use” which indicates the use is incidental and subordinate to the use of the principal structure.

 

There was discussion of water and sewer service. Mr. Koerner stated there is a water line on the west side of the property crossing over to the existing house on Lot #1. The water service will be extended to the other lots. Presently there is a force main from the waste water system on Lot #4 to the existing residence on Lot #1 (pipes go under the road). The soils (7.5 acres) will support a total of eight bedrooms so Lots #1 & #2 can have a total of four bedrooms (served by the existing system presently serving Lot #1) and Lots #3 & #4 can have a total of four bedrooms.

 

Tom Koerner discussed the conserved space needed to quality for a PRD. There will be 2.34 acres of managed space (wildlife management area) on the perimeter of the parcel to the west of Harbor Road. There is also a scenario showing a reduction in the amount of land included in the perimeter and the balance of land being a swath to allow animal access to the lake. The swath of land will require removal of the septic system and replacement field as shown on the plans presently.

 

Peter Gibbs mentioned the suggestion from the Paths Committee about a bike/path easement on both sides of Harbor Road (16.5’ on each side). Mr. Koerner spoke in support of bike/pedestrian paths in essence, but pointed out the road has a significant length of guard rail on the road edge because the ground drops off and there is a hedgerow of trees then the lake on the east side of Harbor Road.  Dean Pierce noted the revised plan by the Paths Committee for Harbor Road shows bike lanes (not a separate path) added to the edge of the pavement on both sides of the road. Mr. Koerner questioned the feasibility of a path on the road due to the narrowness of the road and the right-of-way, the topography, existing mature trees, and the lake.  There was further discussion of a separate path versus a bike lane on Harbor Road. It was noted there are natural features, guard rails, mature landscaping, and plantings that must be considered. Mr. Koerner calculated the pavement only covers half of the right-of-way so a separate path would be 30’ onto private property which is a significant impact. A lane added to the existing pavement may be the only realistic option.  Dean Pierce noted PRDs are subject to site plan review which includes pedestrian circulation (Section 1604). The Board can require trails, walkways, accommodation for alternate transportation modes. Peter Gibbs stated having an easement in place provides options to the town in the future. Mr. Koerner observed adding a lane to the existing road shoulder would probably get a path in place much sooner versus building a separate pathway. Also, there are healthy, mature trees close to the road. Dick Elkins said he is resistant to taking one rod of private property. Tom Koerner pointed out two one-rod easements represent $160,000 worth of property in today’s market. Kay Kraushaar acknowledged the need for a path or lane and did not want to miss the opportunity to secure an easement of some kind for a path potentially in the future. Tom Koerner suggested the town negotiate the easement when this is done with other residents on the road, rather than hinging the easement on the development proposal. Ms. Kraushaar explained the town typically seeks an easement during the application process, and eventually will link the pieces together.  Mr. Koerner asked who will maintain the land in the right-of-way and if the area will be restricted from any kind of structure (i.e. stone wall, fence).  There was further discussion of the path issue and the topography of the land. There was consensus a site visit would be prudent.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/20/08.  Tom Koerner asked about the 30’ no cut buffer on both sides of the road. Peter Gibbs referred to the draft conditions of approval regarding no cutting to maintain screening along Harbor Road. Mr. Koerner stated there is buckthorn, honeysuckle and other weed trees on the east side of the road. Some ash and pine trees were removed from the west side of the road. Mr. Koerner said he is willing to plant some trees, but was not hopeful they would survive. There are cutting restrictions on the conserved land.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Shawn Thomas and Colleen Haag appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Shawn Thomas explained the proposal to subdivide 4.32 acres from a 25.5 acre parcel on Thomas Road. Mr. Thomas stated in 1978 his parents bequeathed the land to their five children. The land was surveyed and the separate deeds recorded with the town, but the town has not recognized the deeds. In 1989, a parcel in the shape of a donut hole was carved out of one lot (Perkins lot) and a house built. In 1993, a boundary line adjustment was made. Lot 1 is 13.3 acres, Lot 2 is 4.3 acres, and Lot 3 is 7.9 acres. The existing Perkins homestead (on the donut hole shaped property) is 2.5 acres.  Access to Lot 3 will be via a right-of-way.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about lot frontage and lot width requirements, questioning how the “C” shaped lot around the ‘donut hole parcel’ can meet the requirements. Mr. Gibbs also asked if there are proposed house sites on the lots.  Colleen Haag stated the family has kept the land open and paid taxes for the past 30 years. Townspeople have enjoyed use of the land, and the family would like the property to remain as undeveloped as possible. A PRD will allow more density with open land around the houses.  Shawn Thomas stated perk tests for septic systems have been done.  Kay Kraushaar asked if there are building sites for each family member. Ms. Haag stated the plan is for the maximum number of house sites permitted on the property.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/20/08. It was suggested the Board do a site visit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Mike Anderson, Scott Homsted, and Ed Fitzpatrick appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Scott Homsted stated the site plan shows the zoning map town line as the town line. Lot 1 includes the land in the disputed area. There is no additional building envelope on Lot 1 so there will actually be five building lots and one lot of conserved land.  Lots, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are building lots. Lot 1 will be the remaining lands with potentially having a building envelope depending on resolution of the town line issue and approval by the Development Review Board.  Other elements of the plan have not changed from what was previously presented.

 

There was discussion of the sewer force main. Mr. Homsted explained the location of the force mains. The force main for Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be installed parallel to the driveway. The waste water system is on Lot 3.  Mr. Homsted noted there is an access easement through Lot 3 to allow access to an eight acre landlocked parcel.

 

Ed Fitzpatrick reported revised legal documents were submitted to staff and issues raised by the Town Planner were addressed. There is a forest management plan for the property. Lot 2 and Lot 3 have 400’ of frontage. The configuration has not changed through the entire permitting process. Only Lot 1 is involved in the town line issue.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the configuration of Lot 1 as presented, adding it would make sense to have the southwest corner of the lot go to the boundary line to avoid having an odd shaped lot. Mr. Homsted stated the lot layout is to maintain access on the cul-de-sac on Lot 3 and 400’ of frontage on the east side of the right-of-way for Lot 3.  Also, it was thought better to have to adjust only one lot when the boundary line matter is resolved (that is why the lot configurations have not been changed from the previous plans).  Dean Pierce noted amendment to the zoning regulations in January, 2007 changed the definition with the intent to avoid odd lot shapes to meet frontage requirements.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/6/08, and a memo from John Adams, dated 2/20/08, containing draft motions for consideration. There was discussion of the draft motions, and further discussion of the town boundary line issue. Scott Homsted stressed years of work have been put into the project, and to ask the applicant to revise two lots that were previously acceptable is unreasonable. Ed Fitzpatrick added it would be financially catastrophic if only three building lots out of the entire acreage are allowed. Lot 7 is conserved land.  John Adams stated lots 1, 2, and 3 have a number of issues. There is also the matter of the boundary line uncertainty and approving Lot 1 as presented. Partial approval of the subdivision (i.e. lots 4, 5, 6, and 7) allows the applicant to return at a later date to make an amendment to the site plan perhaps once the boundary line issue is resolved. Scott Homsted questioned how Lot 2 and Lot 3 are impacted by the town line matter since the lots do not intersect the line. Also, the lots are regularly shaped. The issues are tied up in one lot (Lot 1). John Adams pointed out Lot 2 and Lot 3 are adjacent to Lot 1 so if the Board approves Lot 2 and Lot 3 essentially Lot 1 as presented is being approved. Scott Homsted interjected just the side of Lot 1 that abuts Lot 2 and Lot 3 is involved.  There was further debate on the impact on Lot 2 and Lot 3 by Lot 1 as well as the town line issue.  Ed Fitzpatrick contended the town line does not impact Lot 2 or Lot 3. If Lot 1 does not meet the regulations after the boundary line issue is settled then the lot will not be a building lot. If Lot 1 does meet the regulations then the applicant will have to secure approval for a building lot from the DRB. Lot 1 was once an approved building lot, but now could become simply additional open space. To limit the applicant to three lots on the entire acreage (133 acres) would be crippling because Lot 7 (71 acres) is not a building lot.

 

There was discussion of the lot layout and lot width (minimum of 400’). Scott Homsted pointed out making Lot 1 wider could make the lot be out of compliance when it was a conforming lot previously. The lot lines to the road are at right angles. Mike Anderson said he is amenable to reconfiguring Lot 1 to a more regular shape by having finger shaped end of the parcel become part of Lot 7.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dan Coolbeth, adjacent property owner, asked if consideration had been given to a right-of-way through Lot 3 to properties yet to be subdivided. Dean Pierce referred to Section 900 of the subdivision regulations relative to arrangement of streets or roads in a subdivision. There was brief discussion of access to other lots.

 

Bernie Guillemette, adjacent property owner, observed if the boundary line matter is resolved and the house that currently is on Lot 1 is considered to be in the Town of Shelburne, then the building envelope on Lot 1 is too close and the town was previously not going to allow this.  Peter Gibbs stated the house that was built on the lot is a separate issue from the application under review. Ed Fitzpatrick noted litigation on the house has begun. Dean Pierce confirmed language in the deed for Lot 1 would include a “Right-to-Golf” provision.

 

 

The Board entered deliberative session at 9:45 p.m.

 

 

Deliberative session was adjourned and the regular meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m.

 

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the Board.

 

 

 

The Board signed the document(s) for the Mammut Sports Group (Climb High) application.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.