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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Steve Vock, David Conard, Chris Galipeau, Jesse Mohr, James Crook, Andrea Crook, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

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

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Three Lots, 33 Thomas Road, Shawn Thomas (SUB08-02)

·        Conditional Use, Modify Non-Complying Structure, 264 Clearwater Road, James and Andrea Crook (CU08-05)

Chairman 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.

 

Steve Vock, David Conard, Chris Galipeau, and Jesse Mohr appeared on behalf of the application. The DRB received and read a memo from Jesse Mohr.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There was discussion of the report from Jesse Mohr, wildlife expert. David Conard reviewed that the applicant did not have significant input to the points emphasized in the report from Mr. Mohr. The applicant did not select the consultant, but enlisted help from the highest stakeholder in the proposed development, Shelburne Farms, which selected the expert. Mr. Mohr has not been able to appear before the DRB prior to this point in time due to work and schedule conflicts.

 

There was discussion of the page wire fence around the property. Peter Gibbs stated the wildlife report indicates the page wire fence appears to limit the functional integrity of the deer wintering area. There could be significance to the forest area as winter deer yard, but this may have been compromised by the page wire fence and that has changed the functionality of the habitat. Jesse Mohr noted a 40’ wide swath of land was cleared to install the fence and there is the bike trail, both of which have significant impact on the deer wintering yard.  The fence line is much more of an immediate concern on all animal habitats, not just deer, said Mr. Mohr.  Reg Gignoux noted the effect of the fence can be mitigated by lowering the fence in places and raising the bottom up in places. Steve Vock confirmed the applicant has agreed to these changes, but has not yet implemented them. The full impacts of the fence are more severe presently than will ever be again (because changes will be made).

 

There was discussion of the pond on Bay Road and the wetlands area. Jesse Mohr stated the wetland area is a bottleneck passageway where animals cross into and out of the property. The most wildlife friendly option is to remove the fence completely. At the very least the fence should be removed by the pond and the western edge of the property by the bike path. The bike path needs to be moved off private property and onto town owned land. Also, dogs should be required to be on a leash while on the path. There is a leash law in Shelburne.  Chris Galipeau stated the fence will be modified by the wetlands for the entire length.  Kay Kraushaar asked the purpose of the fencing. David Conard stated Mr. Cabot had planned to have cattle on the land originally.  Mr. Galipeau noted individual lot owners can remove the fence on their property if they desire.  The covenants allow use of the property for permitted purposes that keep the land open. If there is not a use on the property the land must still be mowed and maintained as open. Three years is the maximum length of time recommended between mowing in order to ensure the area remains grass land. Grass land birds like large, expansive fields of grass for nesting. It is best to mow late in the season to allow multiple broods to be raised by the birds.

 

There was further discussion of the deer wintering areas and flow of movement through the property. Jesse Mohr stated the deer move from the Shelburne Farms property through the Cabot property to the LaPlatte nature area. Jim Washburn observed it appears the proposed houses (building envelopes) are in the middle of the movement corridor. David Conard stressed the wildlife will benefit more from the fence modifications and six houses on the property than leaving the fence as it exists today and not building any houses. Jesse Mohr stated a better benefit for a greater range of species is having the fence removed. Some habitat will be lost with the building of six houses on the site.  Ms. Kraushaar asked if there are any state mandates regarding deer wintering areas. Dick Elkins stated deer yards are protected under Act 250 review. Jesse Mohr noted the state does have a methodology for weighing impacts to wintering habitats, and does make an attempt to protect deer wintering areas. There was continued discussion of deer and bird habitats on the site.  John Adams noted the Cabot project does not require Act 250 review because of the small number of lots (not enough to trigger Act 250 review). There was discussion of the “floating” developable areas on four lots within the proposed subdivision. Peter Gibbs pointed out Lot 6 has four acres out of the lot total of 18 acres designated as the floating building envelope. David Conard clarified within the building envelope invasive species can be cut, but only up to 60% of the existing basal area can be cut inside the envelope and 30% of the basal area outside the envelope can be cut.  There was mention of clustering houses to preserve the wildlife corridor. Jim Washburn stated defining with stakes the area where a house will be built on a lot would be very helpful. Mr. Conard pointed out the lots have many topographic features and different buyers will want different house sites. The floating envelope will be pinned down at the building permit stage.  There was continued discussion of floating building envelopes and clearing restrictions on the land.  Steve Vock noted the applicant has protected much of the land. There are only six lots on over 150 acres. The infrastructure is in place. If a PRD was proposed and the houses clustered, there would be many more houses on the site.  Kay Kraushaar reiterated the building envelopes disrupt the wildlife corridor. Chris Galipeau stated there is already the Cabot house on Lot 3 and the house foundation under construction on Lot 2. The animals will navigate as they do on Shelburne Point and Shelburne Farms. The density of the development is low enough to allow the animals to migrate. Steve Vock mentioned the covenants require that structures are not visible to other lots and this will create corridors for the animals. The no cut areas on the property were reviewed.

 

Kay Kraushaar felt information on which to base a decision is lacking relative to what is buildable and what is not buildable, and where this is documented. Also, from a natural resources point of view, wildlife habitat and contiguous segments of land must be ensured for a healthy population. Chris Galipeau stated the building envelopes have been reduced due to the topography of the land. The property owner wants to allow flexibility to potential buyers to site a house as desired. Mr. Cabot has been incorporating some of the existing topography into his building designs, such as siting a house on the edge of the stone quarry and using the quarry itself as an outdoor pool. The building envelope sizes on each lot were noted. Lot 1 has two building envelopes (one of 8.7 acres and one of .7 acres), but only four acres can be developed and there are cutting restrictions as well. The building envelope for Lot 2 is 6.2 acres, Lot 3 is 7.56 acres, Lot 4 is 3.16 acres, Lot 5 is 5.13 acres, and Lot 6 is 10.5 acres.  John Adams stated staff would like to know where and how the floating building envelopes are established. Dave Conard stated the idea of the floating envelope was proposed by the Planning Commission. Reg Gignoux noted the envelope will likely be defined by the lot owner after review of the property. Peter Gibbs recalled the lot owner will submit plans for development through a review process overseen by Tom Cabot before the plan comes to the town for a permit.

 

There was discussion of the issue of compliance to the Town Plan. David Conard stated there is a net benefit to wildlife by having a more permeable fence and the development proposal put forth. Plus the fields will be kept open with Shelburne Farms involvement.  Kay Kraushaar interjected the property owner installed the fence in the first place (there would be no impact on the corridor if the fence was not there). Additionally, the area through lots 4, 5, and 6 does not to the greatest extent possible make room for an adjacent, contiguous wildlife corridor. It is the mandate of the DRB to address this in some way.  Chris Galipeau calculated there is 800’ between the house foundation on Lot 2 and the existing residence on Lot 3. There was mention of Shelburne Farms and all the trails and activity there. There are not many areas on Shelburne Farms with 800’ blocks of space. It was stressed there is less impact on wildlife from the proposed subdivision than the bike path with unleashed dogs.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if there is a limit on the number of structures allowed within a building envelope. John Adams stated there is no limit, but accessory structures must be subordinate to the primary structure. Chris Galipeau stated the building envelopes are consistent with Shelburne’s zoning regulations and setbacks.  There was discussion of the cutting restrictions. David Conard explained no greater than 60% of the basal area within the building envelope can be cut. Reg Gignoux suggested a rule saying nothing can be cut until there is a building permit application to establish a building envelope. Mr. Conard pointed out a lot buyer may want to explore where to locate a house on the property. John Adams stated administratively floating building envelopes are difficult to handle and unenforceable. There was discussion of a lot owner wanting to have the flexibility to locate accessory structures in the building envelope.

 

Kay Kraushaar mentioned the recommendation from the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee to have an independent review of the Natural Resources Management Plan. John Adams pointed out the DRB must consider the 2007 Town Plan while the wildlife consultant does not. Chris Galipeau stated the applicant addressed deer yards and wildlife movement as well as flora/fauna on the site. Dick Elkins noted the applicant’s wildlife expert urged an independent peer review of his report.  David Conard pointed out revisions to the site plan that have been made based on Mr. Mohr’s report and that the report has been reviewed for months yet questions for Mr. Mohr were only presented two days before the meeting on 4/2/08. It is the DRB’s duty to evaluate the material that is received and ask questions. The applicant feels the materials submitted are complete. It is not fair to request an independent review at this juncture. The wildlife expert is present and prepared to answer questions from the board. Dick Elkins said he does not have issues with the Mohr report, but feels the developer is only addressing issues he wants to address.  Reg Gignoux observed the Mohr report took an overall approach to the property, looking at the ecology of the land as a whole, not specifically the deer or the bobcats. The property will be broken up into pieces by the development so there will not be a full ecological system in place. There will be 800’ between structures. The covenants give Mr. Cabot final say on what happens on the lots. Kay Kraushaar felt there needs to be language better defining the building envelopes and buildable areas within the building envelopes.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/2/08. John Adams stated staff recommends an independent technical review of the wildlife issues, and suggests the hearing be continued to a later date and the DRB discuss matters in deliberative session if desired. The DRB should have evidence the plan conforms to the regulations. The DRB is charged with conserving resources and identifying wildlife areas that have been mapped. Staff feels this evidence has not been received. One report indicates the entire deer wintering area will likely be lost to the development. Peter Gibbs interjected some evidence suggested the deer yard has been compromised already. Mr. Gibbs spoke in support of an independent review to confirm the DRB has looked at the issues of deer wintering yard and conformance to the Town Plan. David Conard urged not focusing on a single species in the independent technical review. Jesse Mohr urged that the consultant go into the field to do the review rather than simply looking at images/maps. State Fish and Wildlife workers are constrained by their heavy work load and low staffing which makes it challenging to do field reviews.

 

Mark Sammut asked about the necessity of the fence on the south and north property borders once the lots are developed or putting in a wood (rail) fence. David Conard stated the applicant has not indicated interest in modifying or removing the fence on the borders.

 

David Conard argued the 2004 Town Plan applies to the application, not the 2007 Town Plan.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

James and Andrea Crook appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Crook gave a brief history of their past 30 years of residency in Shelburne and South Burlington, and the purchase of 264 Clearwater Road in 2006.  Mr. Crook stated the neighbors have seen the proposed renovation plans and have no objections.  Letters have been submitted to staff.  It is hoped to start the renovations in April, 2008 for completion by April, 2009.

 

Reg Gignoux observed the overhang on the house may encroach on the side yard so the size of the house may have to be decreased. Also, the driveway is large for the small lot. The issue is impermeable surface allowing run off into the lake. Vegetation is needed by the seawall as a buffer to the land side of the wall and to help catch water flow into the lake. Low bush blueberries could be planted, for example.  The seawall needs to be built for high water and high winds. Mr. Crook briefly described the planned Redstone seawall.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/2/08. Staff confirmed letters of support have been received from the neighbors. There is an issue with the eaves of the structure in the southwest corner of the property encroaching in the setback. Mr. Crook stated no work is proposed on the dock house at this point in time.

 

Dick Elkins asked when the house is considered rebuilt per the 50% rule. Mr. Crook stated the house was built in 1975. The house is sited for the least amount of disturbance to the neighbors. The proposed footprint is 4,574 s.f. The existing footprint is 4,218 s.f. A smaller house would meet the side yard setbacks.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Postponed until the next meeting.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Wright Caswell, Lois Obregon, Barb Johnson, Glenn Johnson, Oda Hubbard, Robert Behrens, Will Vinci, Linda Vinci, Jon Cocina, Debbie Mintz, Christena Obregon, Chris von Trapp, Bruce Beeken, Paul Roche, Matt Wamsganz, Persis Worrall, Gail Albert, Paul Irish, Alice Lissarrague, Chris Lissarrague, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Sign Permit, Shelburne Baseball

·        Subdivision Final Plan Re-Approval, Two Lots, 636 Falls Road, Glenn and Barbara Johnson (SUB06-10)

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

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

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Six Lots, 539 Irish Hill Road, Christophe and Alice Lissarrague (SUB92-7R1)

Chairman 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.

 

Wright Caswell, Shelburne Baseball Committee, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Caswell stated his committee is charged with securing sponsorship for the signs. The money is used to help the baseball program. Signs have been made according to the regulations (4’x 8’ exterior grade plywood, green background) and will be displayed for five months. Damaged signs will be repaired. The signs will be evenly spaced on the back of the home run fence at the Harbor Road Babe Ruth field and the Little League field (behind the Babe Ruth field). The committee added language to the sign contract to state lettering must be no larger than six inches, there will be no specific advertising, no florescent, metallic, or reflective colors, and no insensitive messages. May 3^rd is opening day for baseball in Shelburne. The signs were donated through S.D. Ireland. The paint was donated by Sherman Williams. Offset House did the graphics. Mr. Caswell mentioned work done on the fields, the dugouts, snack shed, and equipment shed as part of the sign campaign.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/16/08. Jim Washburn asked about the number of signs. Mr. Caswell reiterated the signs will be evenly spaced. The goal is to have 15 signs per field. If all the donations come in the goal will be met this year.  Mr. Washburn calculated there will be 250’ of signage. John Adams explained the applicant is applying under Section 1680.12 for situations not set forth in the bylaws. What was done at the fields behind the Town Center was repeated at the fields on Harbor Road per the regulations set forth by the board. Kay Kraushaar mentioned adding the wording mentioned by the applicant to the regulations. John Adams cautioned against this.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Glenn and Barbara Johnson appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from the DRB.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant did not add comment to the staff report.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the DRB.

 

Will Vinci, Bob Berins, Paul Roche, and Matt Wamsganz appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Will Vinci stated the property was formerly occupied by Ann Roche Furniture. The proposal is to change the interior retail space to warehouse space for storage and shipment of items sold by Northface. There will be no exterior changes to the building.

 

Bob Berins referred to the original site plan from 1994 and the updated plan which brings lot coverage into compliance with the regulations. There is a concrete pad (patio) in the front setback. The new use is on-line clothing sales. There will be no on-site retail sales. There will be two employees and one UPS truck per day which is a decrease in the traffic generated by the furniture store. There will be three large deliveries during the year.

 

Matt Wamsganz stated many items on the 1994 site plan were not done. Alternate items were done that were not on the plan and this resulted in an increase in lot coverage. The revised plan returns to 43% coverage which was approved with the original site plan. The Route 7 improvements and subsequent boundary line adjustment impacted the property. With removal of the gravel and wooden structure in the front yard and the taking of land for the Route 7 improvements the lot coverage is 43.6%.  The applicant is requesting the concrete patio in the front of the building be considered lot coverage rather than a structure. The plan is to grade up to the edge of the concrete pad, add topsoil and seed so the ground is flush with the surface.  There was discussion of the existing retaining wall, concrete pad, gravel, and sheds behind the building as well as the concrete patio in front of the building. The chain link fence which is permitted will remain. Two parking spaces by the loading area will be moved to the southeast corner of the parking area.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/16/08. The definition of “structure” in the regulations was reviewed.  Reg Gignoux felt the coverage should be no greater than 40% (to avoid “creeping growth”) and the conditions of the original approval met so both concrete pads should be removed. It is only fair that the applicant follow the approval stipulations, stated Mr. Gignoux.  Dick Elkins concurred with Mr. Gignoux, stressing illegal structures need to be removed.

 

Mark Sammut asked what the lot coverage is if the concrete pads are removed. Matt Wamsganz calculated the coverage is 43.6% with both pads and the land taken by VTrans for the Route 7 project. Without the taking of the land in the calculation the coverage is 42%. With both concrete pads removed the lot coverage would be less than 40%.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the original variance (to exceed 40% lot coverage in order to have three parking spaces and a turnaround in the back of the building; with the new proposal the parking in back is not needed because six spaces for the new use are in front of the building).  Paul Roche, Ann Roche Furniture, stated he did not intentionally violate the rules. In both cases with the concrete slabs there were meetings with the Town Manager (the meetings were with the Town Manager, Paul Roche, and the owner of the Lighting House). Complaints had been filed with the town about furniture being displayed. Following conversation it was agreed the furniture is recreation/patio type furniture and the display could be farther from the road set on a patio. Mr. Roche said most of their customers are women with heeled shoes that sink into lawn so to minimize potential for injury the patio was built to display the furniture. A retractable awning was installed at the same time.  Mr. Roche said his understanding was the space would not be considered a room or in violation of the rules with the awning. Reg Gignoux pointed out the plan that was approved was not followed for whatever reason. John Adams noted the variance granted in 1995 was for parking. Peter Gibbs observed to get the required parking the area to the back of the building was expanded beyond the permit.

 

Mark Sammut asked about the retaining wall and parking being twice as large as the approved plan. Paul Roche explained when the back area was expanded to move the furniture display to the back of the building there was just small stone (gravel). A formal retaining wall was installed on the open land and the wall was moved back.

 

Jim Washburn asked if the plan is for 43% coverage including the pads as part of the structure. Bob Berins confirmed this. John Adams clarified there are two issues: lot coverage (the applicant proposes 43%) and building setback (the front concrete patio encroaches on the front yard setback). Peter Gibbs asked if the gravel and sheds will be replaced with green space. Mr. Berins confirmed this, adding the items out in front of the building will be removed and the retaining wall will remain.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB will deliberate the application in deliberative session.

 

Bruce Beeken and Clint West appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from the DRB.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bruce Beeken reported the plan have been modified to address surface water. Swales and shallow detention areas to retain and manage the water on-site are proposed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Christena Obregon, John Street Condominiums Unit #1, stated there have been problems with getting the attorneys together to review information. The neighbors have concerns about impact on the use and enjoyment of their property. The new plans have not been seen by the neighbors and it is requested the DRB delay action on the application for 30 days to allow review of the new plans and to determine impact on properties. The neighbors have contacted an engineer to review the easement issue and evaluate the plans, but a copy of the new plan is needed in order for this to occur.  Ms. Obregon stated the applicant needs to be more forthright in supplying information to the neighbors. Ms. Obregon listed the following concerns:

 

John Adams stated new plans were submitted to the Planning Office on 4/16/08 (copies were provided to attendees at the DRB meeting).  Peter Gibbs asked if the building areas were changed to accommodate the retention ponds. The location and size of the houses and driveways must be known in order to size the storm water facility unless maximum coverage was used.  Bruce Beeken stated the engineer took the footprint of the existing building and applied it to the back lots for the impervious building footprint. With the swales and retention ponds, the engineer assured there will be one third as much water flowing onto neighboring properties as there is now. Peter Gibbs clarified there could be a decrease in the rate of flow, but there will be more water because pervious surface (land) is being removed for the buildings so there is less land to soak up water.

 

Bruce Beeken stated there are trees planned for the driveway that forks to the new lots to screen the electric transformer and block headlights. The new building on the West property will screen headlights. There will be screening in the parking area below the existing West house and along the back line. There are existing maple and cedar trees. It is anticipated more of the same will be planted. Snow storage must also be accommodated. The retention ponds are four inch depressions for swales (mow-able land form) with a four foot flat section at the bottom of the four inch swale.  Mr. Beeken said he has been frustrated in the ability to get a response from the neighbors about the proposal. Input is wanted, but delays are problematic. Mr. West wants to sell his property, but the sale is contingent upon the subdivision.

 

Reg Gignoux commented ‘in-fill’ by definition means greater density and this is a change in some areas that must be accepted by residents. The Town Plan and the ordinances support greater density in the village.

 

Debbie Mintz, neighbor, spoke in support of a 30-day continuance, assuring the issues can be worked out. There is a tentative appointment with the engineer already scheduled. Bruce Beeken said he had hoped to have these discussion with the neighbors in the past five weeks (since the last meeting before the DRB), but that did not happen. The concern is the tendency by the neighbors to slow the project down through suggestion their real estate attorney is busy and did not get the information out. Another 30 days means another mortgage payment. There is a real financial burden being borne. It is understood the process needs to unfold, but not take unnecessary time. Mr. Beeken said he would prefer not continuing the hearing unless the DRB is not confident with the engineered drainage plan. The plan was reviewed by the Shelburne Public Works Director as well.

 

Lois Obregon, John Street Condominiums, said she is not opposed to the additional houses, but is concerned about the water. Ms. Obregon spoke in support of having the engineer hired by the neighbors look at the revised plans. Kay Kraushaar explained the engineer would be rendering an opinion on whether the applicant’s engineered plans to deal with on-site water are adequate or not. The mandate to the applicant is to produce no more run off that what exists prior to development. Ms. Obregon stated their engineer may feel the easement is the option to take. Ms. Kraushaar pointed out the applicant, not the neighbors, will decide to pursue an easement or not. The on-site system is a different solution. It is doubtful an engineer would recommend a substandard solution.  Bruce Beeken explained the inability to discuss the easement with the neighbors allowed reflection on other possible options. The current plan has advantages, such as eliminating legal expenses associated with establishing an easement with neighbors who may not want one, and keeps the process moving forward. Also, it is less expensive to construct the on-site system and a state permit is not needed. Drainage issues with the Elkins property and the LaPlatte River are avoided as well.  The water will be an asset, not a nuisance, since it will be used for gardens and such.  Past testimony will show our position was to handle water this way, continued Mr. Beeken, and then the easement consideration was raised. Christena Obregon interjected the applicant’s engineer is not present at the DRB meeting to answer questions. The neighbors must rely on the applicant’s testimony. Ms. Obregon appealed to the DRB to consider the rights of other property owners and the impact on neighboring properties. The neighbors’ houses are not shown on the site plan nor is the water that is there now. Water in the retention ponds will seep into the ground and go some where (i.e. backyards).  Ms. Obregon asked about recourse (sue the town or the board for damages to property). Inadequate notice was provided (the new drainage plan was received at the meeting), said Ms. Obregon, and the request remains from the neighbors for a 30 day delay to allow review and comment on the plan. Also, town rules mandate that a notice be posted on the applicant’s property indicating they are seeking subdivision approved, but there is not a notice posted. Reg Gignoux explained the review process (sketch, preliminary, final review) and the information required at each phase.  The applicant submitted a drainage plan, stated Mr. Gignoux, not a new site plan. John Adams noted submitted materials are available for review by the public. The statute requires 15 days notification for the final plat hearing. The application is at preliminary plan review.  Staff provides placards to the applicant to be posted on the property prior to the public hearing.  Bruce Beeken and Clint West confirmed notices are posted on their property (on the telephone in front of the Beeken lot and on the window on the right side of the house on the West property).

 

Peter Gibbs noted there will be not be a state permit requirement with the application. The size of the houses should be known so lot coverage is known. Bruce Beeken assured their engineer will refine the drawings to show reduced lot coverage. Also, technical data for the next phase of review will be included on the site plan. There was further discussion of the current water situation and the impact of the proposal. It was noted the neighbors can have their engineer review the drainage plan relative to their properties. It was also noted there is a privately held drainage system in place to handle water that is currently a problem on John Street (swale, drain pipe, easement to John Street) and there are maintenance issues with the system because through a succession of owners the original design of swales has been impeded (sheds, brush piles are in the swales). There are improvements that can be made in the John Street neighborhood to improve the drainage.  The charge to the applicant is not to increase the amount of drainage (not solve the drainage problem that exists prior to the application being submitted). Bruce Beeken commented the state will look positively on the proposed drainage system because more run off is not being directed into the LaPlatte River.  Mark Sammut suggested a maintenance plan be included for the drainage system proposed by the applicant.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the DRB.

 

Alice Lissarrague appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

The applicant did not add any comments to the staff report.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 4/16/08.  John Adams explained the suggestion for a PRD versus subdivision of lots. The PRD will allow more flexibility in design and configuration of the lots that will benefit the property. The parcel is large with lots of natural features.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chris von Trapp, neighbor, asked about the PRD process. Reg Gignoux explained the town wants to be sure the applicant is in consultation with other professionals when looking at the goals of the project, and to be aware of all possibilities, for example, potentially allowing a public trail in the southeast corner of the property.

 

Paul Irish, neighbor, stated his family has owned the property to the north and southeast as well as across the road intersection for the past 150 years. The stewardship of the land by the Hubbard family is appreciated. Mr. Irish asked about the long term plan for the property since the land is in the town’s growth area. Reg Gignoux stated it is the decision of the applicant to share information on their plans or not.

 

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, noted the land in the southeast corner was conserved previously. The applicant confirmed the land, except for the five undeveloped lots in the subdivision, is under the state’s current use program for land management. The program is designed to provide a tax advantage to the property owner for the land in the program, but a penalty is incurred if the land in the program is sold. An inventory of what is on the land was done by the state through the land use program. Ms. Albert encouraged the applicant to take the steps necessary to ensure future protection of the land.

 

Dick Elkins asked the applicant to consider an easement across Lot 6 to tie into the trail to Spear Street so townspeople can enjoy walking the trail through the property.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.