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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Oda Hubbard, Vince Paradis, Richard Hamlin, Alice Lissarrague, Ellen McShane, Paul Boisvert, Courtney McDonnell, Kayla Sibilia, Brynn O’Neil.

·        Conditional Use and Site Plan Review, Increase Building Height, 3310 Shelburne Road, Lake Champlain Transportation Company (CU08-04/SP07-03R1)

·        Conditional Use and Site Plan Review, Convert Space from Retail to Warehouse, 2613 Shelburne Road, Will Vinci (CU08-03/SP95-4R1)

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

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Six Lots, 539 Irish Hill Road, Chris & Alice Lissarrague (SUB92-07R1)

Chairman Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:10 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.

 

Staff reported the application was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

 

Vince Paradis and Richard Hamlin appeared on behalf of the appeal. Vince Paradis recalled on October 26, 2007 application for a permit was made and a hearing was scheduled on December 5, 2007. Staff removed the application from the DRB agenda and advised the applicant that the application was invalid. The opinion of the Town Attorney was received too late for review by the applicant, and by November 27, 2007, the applicant had a permit for the application (by default), opined Mr. Paradis. Per 24VSA4448.D the issue of the permit is separate from the issue of abandonment. Mr. Paradis stated disagreement with staff’s position that the structure is abandoned because the applicant has a permit that was validly issued and outstanding. It is questioned how staff would permit the structure if the town’s position is the structure is abandoned. An applicant has a year to execute a permit.  If a permit is not confirmed by the town then an appeal will be made using the same argument of “deemed approval” remedy, stated Mr. Paradis, adding it is questioned how an outstanding issued valid permit is defense for a later claim of abandoned structure, and how a permit can be lost (not considered issued) if the town later decides a building is abandoned. Mr. Paradis referred to “deemed approval” pertaining to the McEwing Services court case decision.  There have been two hearings on the Hansen/Wong structure. The original application was appealed to Environmental Court. There was also a variance request. Abandonment was never brought up as an issue. Vince Paradis reiterated the position that the applicant has a permit. It is not felt the DRB can issue a decision on the building being abandoned when the owner has a current and valid permit in hand.  Furthermore, the issue of abandonment is not relative to the proceeding because there is a permit.

 

John Adams explained the application was warned for a hearing on December 5, 2007 before the DRB. The application was deemed invalid prior to the meeting. Jim Washburn clarified the first hearing was October 26, 2007 and it was past 30 days between when the application was filed and the hearing before the DRB, but the applicant did not have a problem with this. Vince Paradis stated the statute requires within a 30 day period there must be action: approve, deny, or refer. Within 30 days the town said ‘refer’ and the application was scheduled to be heard by the DRB, but then the town changed its position and said the application was invalid. There is no provision in the statute for this action. The applicant should have had a hearing on 12/5/07 and the DRB should have made a decision on the application. That did not occur. What occurred was staff said the application is invalid. Abandonment is not relative, continued Mr. Paradis, but the applicant is forced to appeal this determination in order to proceed forward even though the applicant disagrees with the determination.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked for clarification of “deemed approval” (approval to proceed with the application or approval of the actual application). Vince Paradis stated if an applicant applies to the town both parties have responsibilities. The applicant must make sure the application is complete and correct. The town accepts and hears the application. The applicant can agree with or appeal the action of the town. In the Hansen/Wong case the applicant did not have 30 days; this timeframe was taken away by the town.  Richard Hamlin stated “deemed approval” means the application as submitted is approved. The law states “....a permit shall be deemed issued on the 31^st day.”

 

Dean Pierce stated if the Zoning Administrator took no action than there is no need for the applicant to appeal an action. John Adams did take action within 30 days by warning a public hearing. There are court cases where the court determined permits are not deemed approved. Fulfillment often requires going to court. If the application was misplaced or simply forgotten by staff, then ‘deemed approval’ may apply, but this is not the case with the Hansen/Wong application. The DRB needs to determine if there is a matter to be determined: appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action and/or abandonment. The DRB must also decide if a permit has been issued, but that is a separate matter. There have been situations where an application has been deemed incomplete and then not heard by the DRB. Vince Paradis interjected the applicant has no choice but to contest the abandonment issue otherwise he will be forever foreclosed from contesting the matter. The permit and the abandonment issues are intertwined. The applicant will contest the decision if a building permit is not provided based on the same argument that was previously presented.

 

Paul Boisvert, Bay Road, testified the building has clearly been abandoned for over 12 years. According to another neighbor, continued Mr. Boisvert, the building has been abandoned for over 15 years. Mr. Hansen purchased the land from an individual who never lived on the site either. Mr. Boisvert questioned if an abandoned building can be made not abandoned by breaking the rules.

 

Ellen McShane, Bay Road, recalled the issue of abandonment was raised in two hearings on the property. In the first hearing before the matter went to Environmental Court Mr. Hamlin made a presentation that the building was not abandoned. Then the application went to Environmental Court and back before the DRB for a new permit. A notice was sent to neighbors after the first request for a variance that the building was abandoned. The notice should be on file. Ms. McShane testified she has lived next to the (Hansen) property for many years and the building is abandoned.

 

Vince Paradis conceded the issue of abandonment may have been discussed, but was not a decision before the DRB; the abandonment issue was not litigated. A variance or reconstruction application was litigated. And further, if the issue of abandonment was well known before the application was filed it should not have taken the town 30 days to react. The letter to Richard Hamlin on 12/5/07 indicates the decision was made on 12/5/07. A site visit was conducted on November 27, 2007. Both incidents are outside the timeframe for the 30-day deemed approval statute.  Dean Pierce stated the town would argue that action was taken on the application (i.e. referral of the conditional use application to the board for modification of a non-complying structure) and the result of action subsequent to that was an appeal.  Mr. Paradis stressed if action was referred within 30 days then the action cannot be “un-referred”. The applicant should have had the opportunity to come before the board on 12/5/07 to say the structure was not abandoned, but that opportunity was not allowed.

 

There were no further comments.

 

 

Alice Lissarrague appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Lissarrague explained the proposal to subdivide 80 acres on Irish Hill Road into six lots. The engineering is done for the lots which were previously approved in 1992/93. In 1995 Oda Hubbard filed a termination of subdivision approval.  Two lots will be accessed from a drive off Thompson Road. The lots will be served by municipal sewer and well water (except the two lots accessed off of Thompson Road will have municipal water service). A 20’ easement on Spear Street and Irish Hill Road was previously granted by Oda Hubbard. The ponds on the property are manmade, dug in the 1960s.  Ms. Lissarrague stated the proposal is to keep the corner of Irish Hill Road/Spear Street as open as possible. The orchard there was planted by a family member, and the land is in the land use management program with the state so it can be preserved for all of Shelburne to enjoy.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/5/08. John Adams clarified his comment in the staff report about a Planned Residential Development. It was suggested the Board do a site visit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Postponed until the next meeting.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m.

 

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            Brian Precourt, Dan Melo, Stacy Walbridge, Acoy Cofino, Sam Chauncey, Susan O’Brien, Becky Ramsey, Kary Towne, Christena Obregan, Lois Obregan, John Roberts, Robin Turnau, Brian Marshall, Gail Albert, Tom Koerner, Chris Galipeau, Tony Stout, Maureen O’Brien, Clint West, Bruce Beeken, George O’Brien, Kate O’Brien, Steve Vock, David Conard, Beth Wardwell, Staige Davis, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Free Standing Sign, 92 Church Street, Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington/St. Catherine of Sienna Parish (DR08-02)

·        Design Review, Rooftop Exhaust Vent, 52 Harbor Road, Alfred & Samantha Cofino (DR08-03)

·        Design Review, Sign, 30 Shelburne Shopping Park, Shelburne Dental Group/Dr. Dan Melo (DR08-04)

·        Telecommunications Facility, Translator and Antenna, 200 Wake Robin Road, Vermont Public Radio (TF08-01)

·        Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review, Four Lots, 197 and 167 Mt. Philo Road, Clint West and Bruce Beeken (SUB08-01)

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

·        Subdivision Final Plan Review, 22 Lot PRD, 899 Barstow Road, O’Brien Family Farm (SUB93-3R1)

·        Subdivision Final Plan Review, Six Lots, 2100 Harbor Road, Thomas D. Cabot, III (SUB06-07)

Chairman Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:10 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.

 

Brian Precourt appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Precourt explained the proposal for a free standing sign (42”x 4’) with one foot square brick pillars. The sign will be 6’6” to the top. There will be no lighting. The existing sign on the side of the church will be removed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/15/08. Staff noted the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC) reviewed and approved the sign application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Acoy Cofino appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Acoy Cofino explained the proposal for an exhaust vent on the roof of the building at 52 Harbor Road rather than at the rear of the building. The exhaust chase will be on the interior of the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/20/08. Staff noted HP&DRC reviewed and approved the sign application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dr. Melo appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dr. Melo explained the Shelburne Dental Group has evolved and expanded since its inception in 1960 and now occupies the entire second floor of the building. The practice never had a sign and this lack of visibility was recognized. A sign is now proposed. There will be a strip light on a timer on the sign set to shut off at 10 p.m. Reg Gignoux asked about the light being turned off earlier to be consistent with other sign lights in the area. The applicant said this is acceptable.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/6/08. Staff noted HP&DRC reviewed and approved the sign application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Bruce Beeken, member of the HP&DRC, noted the committee feels a sign serves to say a business is open at this location and as well advertises a business. There is other activity and lights in the immediate vicinity so the lighted sign on the dental practice will not be an impact. The 10 p.m. turn off time acknowledges nearby residents and the proximity of the advertising effort. Reg Gignoux opined signs serve to locate a business, not advertise. If it was the latter then signs would be much larger in the village. The concern is lighting. Lights must be downshielded as much as possible and produce no glare. Kay Kraushaar felt 8 p.m. is reasonable for shut off as the majority of traffic at the shopping center occurs before 8 p.m.; leaving the light on the sign until 10 p.m. seems excessive.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Marshall appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Brian Marshall explained the low power FM transmitter will fill in holes in the coverage area. Coverage should include Route 7 to the lake and back toward the village. It is possible a hill or ridge could block the signal.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/19/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Bruce Beeken and Clint West appeared on behalf of the application.  Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application to participate as a member of the public.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bruce Beeken stated the subdivision plans have been refined. The access driveway is straightened and intrudes less on the existing front yards of the houses. Car headlights on neighboring properties will be better controlled. Utilities are shown on the site plan. Power is on one side of the driveway and water and sewer are on the other side. Three Norway maple trees will be removed. Plantings will be done to replace the maple trees (four sugar maples, cedars, Norway spruce and crabapple trees). The driveway area is to be screened to the potential new structures. It is recognized drainage in the area is an issue (sheet flow of water across yards). Ground water is an issue. There is standing water in the neighbor’s yard. The engineers and town staff feel additional water caused by the loss of absorbent surface area can be addressed by directing the drainage into the storm water drain on John Street. An easement to access the storm drain is needed. Directing the water in this manner should have a positive effect on the existing drainage situation as well.  The water draining into the John Street system can be metered out so the system does not get overwhelmed in a storm. The neighbors have some questions about the proposal and are seeking legal advice. There is good communication with the neighbors.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/19/08.  Comments from the Fire Chief and Public Works Director were given to the DRB. John Adams stated the town owns the storm water catch basin on John Street and has a state permit which would have to be amended if there are any changes to the drainage system. As a condition of approval the applicant and his engineer could be directed to work with the town to obtain an amendment to the ANR permit and satisfy comments from the Fire Chief and Public Works Director.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

John Roberts, neighbor, asked if the drainage design will impact the line of existing maple trees on the west side of the property. Bruce Beeken assured the trees are not impacted. The drainage swale in the driveway runs toward John Street and the proposed drainage system.

 

Dick Elkins, resident, asked if the planned houses will have full basements. The applicant indicated there are no plans for the houses as yet, but the water issue will be considered. Mr. Elkins stated the outlet of the John Street drainage system goes across his property, but the drainage system was not finished by the developer before the town accepted the system and the street. When the developer returned in the spring the pipe was gone.  Some repair work was done about 20 years ago (stone fill added). Mr. Elkins stated he has another easement on the other side of his property as well. There is a stone lined ditch which caused erosion upstream. The ditch cannot handle more water. Mr. Elkins stated his house is already 25’ closer to the river than it was (due to erosion), and suggested the Board and the applicant visit his property to see the situation for themselves. Bruce Beeken said it was his understanding the John Street system was designed to handle the run off that is not effectively being directed to it at present.

 

Lois Obregan asked what will happen if an easement to access the John Street system is not secured by the applicant. Bruce Beeken stated his engineer assured there are alternatives such as capturing the water, using swales with crushed rock, and potentially installing a dry well for run off from the driveway and houses. This will not address the existing drainage and standing water though. Having the easement and installing the proposed system will not drain the entire wet area, but will allow the head water to escape. Ms. Obregan asked about cleaning and repairing the pipe in the easement. Mr. Beeken stated the easement agreement will spell out obligations and responsibilities.

 

There was further discussion of the drainage problems in the area and the DRB doing a site visit to view the drainage situation by the houses next to the river. Peter Gibbs noted the state permit process will likely require resolution of the drainage problems in the town system that occurred because the drainage system was not completely installed.  The applicant will have to demonstrate to the state that peak flow off the site does not exceed the existing flow. Clint West asked if the drainage situation must be resolved in order to secure a subdivision permit which is not a building permit.  Reg Gignoux stated it will likely be a condition of approval that the drainage system be engineered and proven in order to subdivide the lots. Peter Gibbs stated the applicant will likely need to have preliminary approval of the site plan before applying for any state permits. Jim Washburn asked if there is storm water drainage on Mt. Philo Road. The land slopes from Mt. Philo Road to the east. Bruce Beeken stated there is a swale on the west side of Mt. Philo Road, but no drainage system. To the south the land levels out and there is no place for the water to flow.

 

Christena Obregan, John Street condominiums, stated the easement issue has not yet been resolved. The attorneys are still discussing the matter. The revised plan was just received and the engineer’s plans have not yet been received from the applicant.  Ms. Obregan spoke in support of the DRB doing a site visit to the Elkins property, and allowing time for the attorneys to settle the easement issue before a decision is made by the DRB. Ms. Obregan also mentioned plantings and asked if additional trees will be planted to screen the proposed houses. It is not clear where the houses will be built on the lots. Peter Gibbs agreed clear indication of the building envelopes must be shown on the site plan. Bruce Beeken asked if preliminary approval could be granted with the condition state approval of the drainage system be obtained, and if not, then the engineers will develop an alternate plan for Final Plan review.  Reg Gignoux explained the DRB tries to cover most of the details in preliminary plan review rather than final plan review. Because the neighbors are impacted the applicant should settle the drainage issue first then return to the DRB.  Peter Gibbs expressed reservation about granting approval for a utility for which the applicant does not have an agreement as yet.  Mr. Gibbs stated the applicant needs to secure an easement agreement with the neighbor(s), return to the DRB for preliminary plan approval, and then go to the state for necessary state permits. Reg Gignoux echoed these steps. The DRB is not likely to question a drainage system designed by a licensed engineer. The applicant needs to address the concerns of the neighbors. Drainage is the main issue with the application. The location of proposed houses has an impact on drainage. In-fill development though is allowed in the area.

 

Stacy Walbridge, 6 John Street, stated the proposed drainage system relieves some drainage from his property. Now that the town has been alerted to the drainage impact on the Elkins property the matter should be rectified.  Additional screening may be needed for car headlights shining onto the Posey property due to the change in parking for the new access to the West property. Clint West will investigate this matter.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the DRB.

 

Thomas Koerner appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself from review of the application. Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of Chairman. It was noted the Paths Committee rescinded the request for a one-rod easement and asked for at most five feet of land on each side of the road for a bike path. A path is not feasible on the lake side (east side) of the road due to the topography.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Tom Koerner stated there are two possibilities for dedicated open space on the land. One is having the open space exclusively on the west side of the road. Another option is to have a swath of land for wildlife to access the lake on the east side of the road. The conserved space is mainly for animals and will have a limit on cutting. Any plantings should be berry and nut bearing varieties. The suggestion of having conserved land along the road is from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee (Gail Albert noted the committee wanted screening along the road to protect the viewshed). Dick Elkins observed there is a wildlife corridor behind the property on the west side of the road so the conserved land should be on the outside of the property rather than along the road. Tom Koerner agreed the conserved space should be as shown on the site plan. The parcel on the west side of the road abuts a hill and forested area. There is no light coming in from the west so it would be nice to open the area along the road for air and light to allow the trees to grow. Also, if a house is built on the west side of the road, the owners will likely want to see a bit of the lake and have some sun exposure.  The idea of screening structures from view from the lake and road seems an attempt to pretend no one lives on Harbor Road. Maps from 1889 show many structures (houses) on Harbor Road so people have lived there for a long time, stated Mr. Koerner.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/19/08. The DRB reviewed and discussed draft conditions of approval. There was lengthy discussion of accessory structures (garages, sheds) versus accessory apartments on the lots.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB will deliberate the application at a future date.

 

Reg Gignoux returned to the DRB.

 

Tony Stout appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Tony Stout reported all items requested by the DRB have been accommodated except the relocation of the building envelope into the corner on Lot #21 and the pedestrian trail through the other 14 lots. Regarding Lot #21, the upper corner of the land goes from a ridge area into a hollow. No one will want to build their house in a hole (a more likely placement is on the ridge). Additionally, the project in South Burlington impacts potential multi-use of the lot. Regarding a public pedestrian way through the lots, there is no way to have a public trail through private lots without impacting privacy. John Adams noted the idea was children from the development could walk to the nearby school or South Village without going on Barstow Road or Dorset Street. Reg Gignoux pointed out accommodations for bicyclists have been made along the roadside. Creating a trail that goes nowhere and involves another town does not make sense.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the building envelope for agricultural structures on Lot #2. Tony Stout stated the agricultural structure envelope was removed so now the house and accessory structures must fit in the building envelope as shown.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/19/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB will deliberate the application at a future date.

 

Steve Vock, David Conard, and Chris Galipeau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Steve Vock, engineer for the applicant, expressed concern about the request for another environmental and wildlife assessment on the property. The first assessment was done at the request of the Board and is a very thorough and complete reporting. The DRB even made comment to this accord, stated Mr. Vock. The report was also expensive. Most of the issues have been resolved at this point and it is unfair to request another study.

 

Reg Gignoux asked why another request was made. Dean Pierce explained several meetings on the application were held by the Planning Commission before the inception of the DRB. The Planning Commission received the wildlife report late in the process. The author of the report was not made available to answer questions. Staff had concerns and as a result thought it prudent to ask the DRB to exercise the bylaw allowing the request for a report by an independent expert. The DRB must provide a written decision and facts to support the basis of the decision are needed. Staff had questions and felt there was not an adequate record to provide the DRB with complete information. The questions were related to impact on wildlife and conformance with the Town Plan.

 

David Conard, attorney for the applicant, pointed out except for one member the DRB is the same membership as the Planning Commission. The application was granted preliminary plat approval, and half of the conditions of approval were triggered by the study. Over half the board members concluded the study was adequate and thorough. The staff recommendation for an independent review was just received even though the preliminary plat approval was granted seven months ago, and to suggest the study is inadequate at this stage is not appropriate.  Steve Vock added Dean Pierce asked at preliminary review if a third party opinion should be sought and Dick Elkins said no.

 

Dick Elkins stated he had questions he wanted to ask the applicant’s expert. A new study is not necessarily needed, but the biologist expert in Essex Junction could issue a letter on his collaboration with the results of the applicant’s study.  Steve Vock stated the report was a large part of how the plan developed. The applicant feels the process is taking steps backwards at this point.

 

Reg Gignoux suggested the DRB provide questions in writing for the applicant’s expert or the expert attend a future meeting. Steve Vock urged questions from the DRB be formulated for the next meeting.  Dean Pierce pointed out staff shared their concerns with David Conard and the applicant on March 7, 2008. Mr. Pierce expressed concern about the approach of the applicant insisting the DRB formulate questions for their expert. Past practice by the DRB has been the applicant and their consultants provide testimony on matters relative to the application and addresses issues that arise.  The DRB for instance has not formulated questions on traffic for an applicant before the applicant brings in their traffic consultant. David Conard reiterated it was six months after preliminary plat approval that the request for another study was received. Precedent is not being set. The situation is unusual. A wildlife assessment was done and debated at four public hearings. Conditions were crafted and approved by the Planning Commission and the issue then was brought up six months later.

 

Peter Gibbs suggested the applicant and the applicant’s consultants present to the DRB. Steve Vock stressed there has been much opportunity for the DRB to pose questions. David Conard stated legally the applicant has preliminary plat approval with over 21 conditions of approval that must be satisfied. There is Environmental Court if the applicant feels staff is putting forth a process that is improper or illegal.  Dick Elkins said he would like to hear from the wildlife biologist in Essex Junction. Reg Gignoux stated he would like to hear from the applicant’s expert.

 

Dean Pierce explained during preliminary plan review the plan was submitted for comment to the ANR wildlife biologist, but the information was not provided to the Planning Commission. Staff is aware of the legal process. Staff has the responsibility to try to keep the board from making mistakes. David Conard clarified it is up to the Planning Commission to request additional investigation, not staff. The Planning Commission did review and analyze all the information very carefully at preliminary plan review. Reg Gignoux pointed out if Dean Pierce (staff) asked for information it is on behalf of the board with explicit or implicit approval. Dean Pierce further explained the rationale for the letter not being forward to the Planning Commission at preliminary plan review. Following further discussion it was agreed Dean Pierce will forward the letter to the DRB and the Board can forward questions to staff. Steve Vock stressed items that were agreed to at preliminary plan approval should not be revisited. Reg Gignoux asked for the applicant’s indulgence in recognition of the change from the Planning Commission to the DRB.

 

David Conard stated permit conditions have moved into the declarations (items such as building envelopes, identification of how bird habitat is shown on the plat). Steve Vock stressed the applicant is interested in moving forward and finding common ground. Much work on the application has already been done.

 

David Conard confirmed the applicant is not interested in a path on Harbor Road or Bay Road at this time, and will grant time to the town to relocate the town walking trail that is encroaching on private property.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 3/19/08. Letters from the Fire Chief and Public Works Director were given to the DRB. John Adams noted staff has not reviewed the information just submitted by the applicant to confirm all conditions of approval have been addressed. Dean Pierce asked if any waivers will be requested relative to frontage or road standards, noting the requests must be submitted in writing. Mr. Pierce asked if the applicant will be presenting more information addressing compliance with the Town Plan or the subdivision regulations referring to compliance with the Town Plan. David Conard reiterated the proposal has preliminary plan approval.  Mr. Pierce asked if the house sites will be designed by Mr. Cabot. David Conard stated Mr. Cabot will have architectural control per the covenants.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, stated the committee requested an independent review due to the design of the development and fragmentation of the land with building envelopes all over the place. Also, the fences may impact wildlife movement (someone witnessed a doe and fawn who could not clear the fence and a coyote trying to find an opening in the fence).

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.