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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Chuck Dunham, Leigh Sheppard, Reagan Sheppard, Arnold Griffis, Johanna Shal, Howard Seaver, Sean Crumb, Ron Lyon, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Signs, 40 Shelburne Shopping Park, Alan Clayton (DR08-01)

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

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, Leigh Sheppard and Arnold Griffis appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chuck Dunham explained the request for two signs, one being a 3’x 4’ façade sign symmetrical to the sign for the restaurant, black background with gold lettering reading “Leigh’s Barber Shop”, mounted above the bay window on the left side of the building, and one internally illuminated, two foot tall, striped barber pole 10” in diameter mounted on the left side of the bay window. When the barber pole is illuminated and turning, the shop is open for business.  The intent is to replicate a traditional New England barber shop.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the Board.

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Sean Crumb reviewed the revised site plan, noting the revisions are based on comments from the last meeting. There is no change to the impervious area. The 3,858 s.f. building has been moved closer to Route 7. Parking is located on the south side of the building. There is a loading/unloading (delivery) area on the north side of the building. Three gas pumps are located on the east side of the building. Ingress/egress is onto Executive Drive. Access to the Almartin Volvo roadway is not shown on the site plan because there is no agreement in place at this point in time. Discussion of a potential access is on-going. The gas bulk tanks are buried in the ground in the grassy area on the east side of the property. Additional foundation plantings are located along the front of the building and along the sidewalk. The dumpster area is in the northeast corner of the property.  Mr. Crumb reviewed revised building elevations. The entry to the building is on the south side (parking is adjacent to the entryway). There will be a convenience store and deli in the building as well as associated storage. All restaurant seating has been removed. Customers seeking fuel will travel to the east side of the building and can enter the store via the doorway there.  A sample of the brick for the façade was shown. The brick is Cambridge style. The building will be colonial style, brick with green trim.

 

There was discussion of the parking area on the south side of the building and possibly replacing the grass bump-outs with concrete or sidewalk. Mr. Crumb agreed the area can be reviewed. Jim Washburn felt the entryway to the parking area is narrow at 26’ wide, especially for two cars entering/exiting.  Mr. Crumb stated the entry could be widened somewhat. There was mention of parking by the underground tanks. Mr. Crumb said the area needs to be open for adequate turning radius.  There was discussion of the potential for access onto the Almartin Volvo roadway which would improve traffic circulation on the site. The applicant contended there is adequate traffic movement on the site even without the access.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if the lighting plan meets current town ordinances. Sean Crumb stated it is believed the plan meets the standards, but changes can be made if necessary. It was explained the lighting consultant hired by Jolley Associates interpreted the ordinances relative to direct and indirect illumination and the town’s standard (3.0 footcandles and 16’ height limit), and produced the plan based on that interpretation. Dean Pierce countered there may be some areas that exceed the 3.0 footcandle limit. Ron Lyon noted if the interpretation of 3.0 footcandles is a problem, the consultant indicated adjustments can be made.  Sean Crumb assured Jolley Associates is willing to work with the town on lighting, suggesting a condition of approval could be added stating approval is contingent upon the lighting plan being approved. There was further discussion of lighting and the interpretation of the standards by the applicant’s consultant and town staff. Reg Gignoux pointed out town regulations have been updated to provide for more energy efficient lighting, and it is hoped the applicant would work toward this even though the application was filed under the former regulations. The lights on the site and building were reviewed. Ron Lyon noted there are lights that have some spillage onto the wall of the building (the lights are horizontally installed, not tilted). Dick Elkins asked about plantings on the east side of the building to soften the lighting at night for the nearby residential area.  Mr. Crumb agreed to give the suggestion some consideration. There are ash, pine, and honey locust trees to be planted to provide screening without impacting sight distance.  Mr. Elkins suggested hemlock trees might be added for additional screening. Mr. Crumb stated if the access onto the Almartin Volvo roadway does not materialize then the entire grass area can be filled in with plantings.

 

Jim Washburn asked about the sign. Mr. Crumb stated the sign will meet town regulations. A sign permit has not yet been pursued. The sign will be the typical 24 s.f. internally illuminated Mobile monument sign with three price panels and “Jolley” logo in the corner. Reg Gignoux asked if the Jolley logo over the door to the building is a sign and in lieu of a façade sign. Dean Pierce stated a corner lot is allowed two façade signs. Mr. Crumb agreed to remove the logo from the east elevation, but maintain the logo on the south and west elevations.

 

Mr. Washburn asked if diesel gas will be sold at the site. Mr. Crumb stated an additional tank would have to be added and a four product dispenser or one of the tanks would have to be modified in order to sell diesel gas. Selling diesel at the site is not anticipated.

 

There was discussion of employee parking on the north side of the building and conflicts with the loading area. Sean Crumb stated employees will be directed to specific parking spaces. The delivery area is specified on the north side of the building. The parking was based on the square footage of the building. Dean Pierce clarified the 13 vehicular parking spaces meet the non-delivery requirement for parking and the two loading spaces meet the loading space requirement.  There was further discussion of the grass islands, using textured pavement to signal the parking area and that pedestrians may be present, broadening the parking lot and centralizing the sidewalk to the store, and moving the entrance to the east resulting in additional parking area without additional pavement.

 

There was mention of snow storage/removal. Mr. Crumb stated the snow will be piled in the corner of the lot and removed when the piles become too large.

 

Claude LaPierre asked about the entryway doors to the building. Mr. Crumb stated the design is for heat efficiency. Mr. LaPierre suggested there be a half-moon shaped window over the door on the west side of the building to match the rest of the entryways. Mr. Crumb agreed if there is space this can be done. Mr. LaPierre asked about the mechanical equipment enclosure. Mr. Crumb stated the enclosure is for the compressors. The enclosure will be fenced and only seen from the east side of the building.

 

It was mentioned the Jolley store in South Burlington is approximately 3,800 s.f. The proposed store in Shelburne is 3,858 s.f.  Dean Pierce asked about the actual amount of retail space. Mr. Crumb stated the floor plan is not yet drawn so the figure is not known at this time. There is a basement to the building which is used for storage. Jolley Associates consults with Efficiency Vermont for recommendations on being as efficient as possible.

 

Howard Seaver expressed appreciation for the willingness of the town to work with the applicant on a win-win plan for both parties. Both the applicant and the town showed flexibility in trying to address comments. The pumps are located behind the building. There may likely be pedestrian customers due to the sidewalk on Route 7.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written memo on the application from Dean Pierce, dated 1/9/08. Mr. Pierce asked if comments from the Public Works Director have been addressed. Ron Lyon confirmed the comments have been addressed. The comments involved the sidewalk being over the town water line, the location of the nearest hydrant, and the tie in for utilities. The sidewalk was moved onto the applicant’s property. The closest hydrant is within the 500’ requirement. The utilities tie-in was shifted per the relocation of the building. Dean Pierce asked if the building footprint was changed due to the relocation of the sidewalk. Mr. Lyon calculated the building was moved back 3.75’ to accommodate the sidewalk.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Board will deliberate the Jolley application and issue a written decision within 45 days.

 

 

 

The DRB received a copy of language in the existing draft legal documents prepared by the developer’s attorney. Comments/feedback is requested. There was discussion of the tree clearing language (add language to cover trees, shrubs, and ground cover). Reg Gignoux stated there should be no prohibition against removing invasive species and dead/diseased trees, and this should be stated in the legal documents. It was suggested language from previous agreements be adopted. A uniform policy should be drafted. Jim Washburn asked if the language will apply to a specific project or the entire town. Dean Pierce explained the language will give the DRB flexibility to apply what is appropriate for the Sugarwood site.  Mr. Washburn cautioned against the DRB micro-managing projects.  Reg Gignoux stated the language clarification is to avoid misunderstanding in the future.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

 

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Lois Obregon, Stacy Walbridge, Jon Kent, Ben Lawton, Robert Platt, Thea Platt, Eric Morris, Clint West, Roger Guillemette, Chris Hansan, Randy Rowland, David Nelson, Debbie Mintz, Cecile Guillemette, Bernie Guillemette, Gerry Guillemette, Deb Morris, Jeremy Matosky, Katharine Stockman, Radcliffe Romeyn, Bruce Beeken, Sara Beeken, Mike Anderson, Scott Homsted, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Subdivision Review, Two Lots, 197 & 167 Mt. Philo Road, Clint West and Bruce & Sara Beeken (SUB08-01)

·        Subdivision Review, Final Plan Amendment, Relocate Building Envelope, Lot 7, 823 Shelburne-Hinesburg Road (formerly 1260 Pond Road), Eric & Deborah Morris (SUB03-04R1)

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

Reg 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.

 

Clint West and Bruce & Sara Beeken appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Clint West explained the proposal to create new lots in the rear of the properties at 167 and 197 Mt. Philo Road (abutting properties).  The existing lot sizes are 44,950 s.f. (Beeken lot) and 31,800 s.f. (West lot).  Mr. West plans to retain 17,600 s.f. and his existing house while creating a new lot in the back of 14,280 s.f. (noted as Lot 1 and Lot 1-A on the site plan).  Mr. Beeken plans to retain 22,300 s.f. and his existing house while creating a new lot in the back of 22,650 s.f. (noted as Lot 2 and Lot 2-A on the site plan).  There will be a common right-of-way to serve the newly created lots. The right-of-way is designed to follow the contours of the land and meet the setbacks. There will likely be another curb cut created for the access road to the back lots.

 

Bruce Beeken stated the prospective buildings are centered on each new lot to maximize efficiencies and economics, more of a “master plan” approach for the development. The building locations are hypothetical at this point in time.  Mr. Beeken acknowledged the drainage issues in the area and that changes to the properties will impact drainage. The neighbors are informed about the proposal to develop the lots. Civil Engineering Associates has been contracted to help determine the impact on drainage and identify potential improvements.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the single car garage on the West house. It was noted the garage space was converted to living space at some point in the past.  Mr. Gibbs spoke in support of combining two driveways into one curb cut, and asked about lot coverage on the existing lots relative to the driveway for the new lots. John Adams stated there are no coverage issues on the existing lots. Comment cannot be made on the proposed lots because there is no development as yet.  There was discussion about drainage. It was noted the low point of the lots is on the east side. There is a garden and an old chicken coop on the Beeken lot. Peter Gibbs mentioned the force main for sewer and asked if the new lots will each have a pump station. Mr. Beeken explained the engineer advised having two separate pump stations if pump stations are necessary.

 

Dick Elkins commented on drainage in the area (very poor) and urged having a plan to deal with run off immediately as with collection in a retention pond. Mr. Beeken confirmed their plan is for a more natural and absorptive setting versus a drain pipe into the municipal system.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/23/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stacy Walbridge, neighbor, expressed concern about drainage, noting the area is a marsh in the springtime. A lasting approach that improves the drainage situation is needed. Mr. Walbridge asked about the application procedure. Subdivision review and classification of the proposal as a major subdivision (because four lots are involved) was explained.

 

A neighbor (behind the West residence) spoke of existing drainage issues in the area and expressed concern about additional run off from the additional driveway. Concern was also expressed for car headlights shining on adjacent properties. It was suggested the trees on the edge of the West property remain in place (Mr. West indicated it is likely the trees will remain). Inquiry was made as to the size of the proposed houses and whether zoning regulations are met.  John Adams confirmed the subdivision as proposed meets all dimensional requirements. A variance from zoning is not necessary. Allowed lot coverage in the zone is 20% maximum.

 

A neighbor (behind the Beeken residence) asked from comments from the Board on how the existing houses in the neighborhood may be impacted by the proposal, noting drainage, lights and noise are issues that have been raised. Reg Gignoux pointed out the applicant is forthright in acknowledging problems that may or may not exist. Offensive lighting is an item the Board may be able to address. The project will increase density which is the intent of the Town Plan for the zone where the development is proposed.  John Adams stated the West property is the last lot in the Village District. There are different density requirements for properties to the south of Mr. West’s lot.  Dean Pierce explained in the recently updated Town Plan the Village District was shifted (the southern boundary moved to the north). The density is not as great outside the Village District. Mr. West submitted his subdivision application under the old regulations.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Eric and Deb Morris appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself from discussion of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Eric Morris explained the request for a minor amendment to the subdivision approval to move the building envelope on Lot 7. Lot 7 is part of an approved subdivision at 823 Shelburne-Hinesburg Road. The lot was surveyed in 2003 and the boundary lines were clearly stated. In September, 2007, a spec house was constructed and the prospective buyer requested a barn be built as well. The town was asked if the building envelope could be shifted, but it appeared the house would not fit as shifted in the envelope. The lot was resurveyed and it was found the house under construction was not in the permitted building envelope. The building envelope will be decreased to 4,900 s.f. and shifted to the north and west, stated Mr. Morris, adding the envelope as originally permitted would have allowed the house to be closer to Pond Road and away from most of the screening on the land. The building under construction is in the least visible portion of the property. Mr. Morris spoke in support of the no cut zones as specified and using downcast exterior lighting. Also, seven evergreen trees will be planted. The applicant requested that a Letter of Credit not be required if the trees are already planted.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/23/08. Kay Kraushaar asked if the change in the building envelope will allow for a secondary structure or barn. It was explained barn structures are allowed outside building envelopes of lots not subdivided, but in a subdivision accessory structures including barn structures must be in the envelope and that is why the applicant approached the town for an amendment.

 

There was discussion of removal of invasive plant species which are growing on the site. The applicant indicated the intention is to remove the invasive species over time so clear cutting does not occur. The neighbors want as much vegetation maintained as possible.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

An adjacent neighbor commented positively on the proposed screening and extra effort being made by the applicant to minimize impact on neighbors.

 

Randy Rowland, 888 Pond Road, asked if the existing trees will remain. Mr. Morris pointed out the trees are in the no cut zone.

 

Bob Platt, 1271 Pond Road, expressed concern about the Board setting a precedent if the building envelope is relocated. Mr. Platt recalled the Zoning Board ruled on an application in the past the removal of 10’ of a new structure that was built outside a building envelope. The situation with the Morris lot was discovered and the neighbors were able to work out an amicable solution which is good because the value of the structure being built will likely exceed $1 million, estimated Mr. Platt, stressing it is best to prevent the situation from happening in the first place, and when an error is found construction should cease immediately.

 

Thea Platt, 1271 Pond Road, opined Mr. Morris decided the house would be more saleable if relocated on the site in order to have a better view of the pond. Now the house is built and the town is in a position to approve the relocation. This same scenario has occurred before, continued Ms. Platt, and the town needs to “have backbone to not have this happen”.  There was further discussion of the matter. The Board felt there was not malice intent on the part of the applicant, just a mistake and perhaps sloppy attention to detail. Dean Pierce pointed out the DRB does not have an enforcement role, but can attach specific conditions of approval to an application, such as requiring site inspections to confirm construction is within the building envelope.  The Zoning Administrator enforces the town ordinances.

 

There was mention of a Notice of Violation. John Adams stated Mr. Morris requested an amendment to the subdivision approval and if the approval is granted then the problem is resolved. If the amendment is not granted, then a Notice of Violation will be issued.

 

There was mention of the requirement of a preconstruction meeting. Dean Pierce explained preconstruction meetings typically cover roads, sewer, and water, not houses specifically.  Thea Platt stated the house on the lot is monstrous and expensive; Eric Morris will make $2 million on the sale of the house and lot.  Developers are making lots of money on houses in Shelburne so fees should be adequate to cover the cost to the town for site inspections and lot measurements to ensure compliance with the approved site plan. Dean Pierce noted the Selectboard establishes the fee structure for the town. The permit section of the bylaws could be modified to include language mandating site inspections.

 

There was discussion of screening, conditions of approval for a permit, and language in the deed. The town cannot act on language in the deed, but can enforce conditions attached to the permit.  Regarding screening, Dean Pierce suggested a condition of approval stating there shall be a series of no fewer than 24 photographs of the house and no cut zone taken from the north, east, south, and west using a normal (common) camera lens, and these photos shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mike Anderson and Scott Homsted appeared on behalf of the application.  John Adams announced some of the abutting property owners were not notified of the hearing and requested the hearing be canceled or continued to 2/20/08 to provide them the opportunity to discuss their concerns relative to the applicant’s proposal.  The applicant pointed out the plan presents an alternative to allow the project to proceed while the town boundary line issue is being resolved. Presentation for the building on Lot #1 will be provided at a later date.  It was noted the town line is as depicted on the tax map which is not reflected on the applicant’s plan. John Adams stated staff requested the applicant resubmit his plan according to the town’s zoning map since the DRB must administer the town’s bylaws according to the town’s zoning map.  There was further discussion of the plan as submitted and a revised plan showing the current town line.  The applicant pointed out the intent is to keep the project moving forward by reviewing other parts of the development not impacted by the boundary line and addressing the issue on Lot #1 when the boundary line matter is resolved.  Reg Gignoux stated without an accurate representation of the boundary line and because there are neighbors who could not attend the hearing but who have concerns about the proposal it is recommended the hearing be postponed to the next available time slot.  Following further brief discussion, the Board decided to hear public comments from the attendees.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gerry Guillemette, Pond Road, questioned how the application can proceed without definitive boundary line information. Reg Gignoux stated the DRB cannot get involved in the boundary line issue, but can ask for material to reflect accurately what the town believes to be true.

 

Cecile Guillemette, Pond Road, volunteered that she has many maps of the area since she has lived on Pond Road since 1948.

 

Rad Romeyn, 1260 Pond Road, asked how trees will be prevented from being cut down to provide a view of Shelburne Pond, noting the sensitive area where the proposed building envelope is located and the forest management area to the north.

 

Bob Platt, Pond Road, requested there be a cut off date prior to the next hearing when all application materials are made available for public review.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the Board.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 9:05 p.m.