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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Vince Paradis, Richard Hamlin, Peter Post, Peg Rosenau, Staige Davis, Steve Vock, Persis Worrall, David Conard, Chris Galipeau, Stuart Bennett, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Front Entryway and Porch, 275 Marsett Road, Peter Post (DR08-05)

·        Design Review, Replace Free Standing Sign, 5203 Shelburne Road, Stuart Bennett (DR08-06)

·        Appeal, Construction Without Permit, 44 Fieldstone Way, Waxler (A08-07)

·        Appeal, Incomplete Permit Application, 715 Bay Road, Hansen/Wong

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

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

John Adams called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and reviewed the items on the agenda.

 

Reg Gignoux is Chairman of the Shelburne Development Review Board.

Peter Gibbs is Vice Chairman of the Shelburne Development Review Board.

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

Peter Post appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Post explained the proposal to add a small mudroom on the front of the house and replace the existing front door with a window. The 6’x 10’ mudroom addition will replace some of the driveway area. A saltbox style roof will be built. The door facing the road will have two-over-two windows and two columns. A photograph of the trim on the house was shown. The trim on the addition will be similar in style.  A deck (10’x 12’) made out of western red cedar will be added to the back of the house. Interior changes to the kitchen are planned.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/7/08. Reg Gignoux mentioned the two conditions of approval drafted by the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC).

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Stuart Bennett appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bennett submitted a revised rendering of the proposed sign incorporating recommendations from the HP&DRC.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/7/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the appeal. John Adams noted correspondence from the applicant was received requesting a continuance until June 4, 2008. Correspondence was also received from a neighbor of the appellant requesting to be included as an interested party. The neighbor cannot attend a DRB meeting until June 18, 2008.

 

 

Vince Paradis and Richard Hamlin representing the appellant appeared on behalf of the appeal. John Adams noted the Town Attorney recommends the appellant submit arguments in writing. The DRB’s decision should be in writing as well. Vince Paradis, attorney for the appellant, indicated their arguments are not prepared in writing. Reg Gignoux stated the DRB should follow the advice of the Town Attorney and requested the appellant submit arguments in written form. The DRB will deliberate the matter at a future time.  Vince Paradis commented it is unfortunate procedurally where the application/appeal has gone thus far, recalling on March 5, 2008 there was a hearing on the Conditional Use permit. A building permit application was also submitted. The CU was heard and denied then appealed to the court. The facts are the same as was presented on March 5^th so it is disingenuous to have Mr. Hansen go to the expense and time to do written arguments, stated Mr. Paradis. The appellant feels he has a ‘deemed approved’ permit as a Conditional Use approval that the DRB heard and denied, and a building permit as a deemed approval. The DRB has not heard the argument on the building permit. It is believed either matter will go to ruling by a higher body so the time and expense to do written arguments for the DRB will not happen, assured Mr. Paradis, maintaining the appellant feels he has ‘deemed approval’ permits per the arguments presented on March 5, 2008.  Reg Gignoux suggested the evidentiary portion of the application be closed and the DRB deliberate the matter as appropriate.

 

 

The DRB will deliberate the Hansen/Wong appeal at a future date.

 

The applicant submitted a written request on 4/30/08 to withdraw the application.

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Galipeau pointed out revised covenants and a revised site plan have been submitted. There have been two site walks with the DRB and one site walk with the state wildlife expert, John Gobeille. Changes were made to the Declaration of Covenants and the plat of survey on the entire northerly boundary (by the bike path), at the southeast corner of the parcel, and by the wetlands on Bay Road based on information from Mr. Gobeille. The top two strands of barbed wire will be removed. The woven fencing will remain, but the height will be no more than 48”. There can be electric or barbed wire, but not higher than the top of the fence. Small animal crossings will be at locations previously indicated.  There was discussion of the effectiveness and purpose of the barbed wire and electric fencing. Chris Galipeau noted originally the applicant planned to have livestock on the land. The fence will also stop people and dogs from trespassing and camping illegally on the property.  Staige Davis pointed out the changes to the fence are following the recommendations of the state wildlife expert. The changes still allow passage of wildlife through the area.  David Conard stated the proposed modifications include access at the corners.

 

Chris Galipeau review the potential location of a residence on Lot #4, noting the structure may be more visible from Harbor Road so an expanded vegetative buffer is suggested.

 

David Conard reviewed revisions to the covenants, noting on Page 3, Paragraph 4, the red cedar outcroppings are to be preserved if possible. Paragraph 5 pertains to cutting restrictions inside and outside the building envelopes (i.e. basal area of tree cover on each lot). Paragraph 8 defines the establishment of the “floating” building envelope on the lots with the exception of Lot #1. The floating envelope ranges in size from one-half acre up to a maximum of four acres. Each addition must be 100’ wide and contiguous to the initial building envelope. Page 5 of the covenants covers the community waste water system which may encroach on the vegetative buffer so some white pine trees may have to be removed. Trees will be replanted in the field to provide at a minimum a 50’ wide pine tree buffer between the cutting and the field. There will be a triangle of added plantings on Lot #4 before improvements are done on the lot. Page 6 indicates design review approval is needed by the internal committee of lot owners charged with reviewing the design of proposed structures on the lots before the lot owner can seek permits from the town. Following further discussion of this item, David Conard will add language to address the situation of Mr. Cabot or his executor not being available (for design review) and there are still lots to be sold/developed. Reg Gignoux suggested members of Shelburne Farms could be on Mr. Cabot’s design review committee.  Mr. Conard continued review of the covenants. Page 7 covers signs no greater than two square feet being posted on the perimeter fence.  There has been no change in the covenants to the grassland bird habitat which has been identified as “maintained open land per covenant”.

 

Jim Washburn asked about the number of trees to be planted relative to the work on the waste water system. David Conard stated the number of plantings depends on how much cutting is necessary to implement the system. The plantings will be at least as dense as the existing white pine trees.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the response time from the internal design review committee to the lot owner. David Conard stated after 30 days without a response from the committee the design is deemed approved and the lot owner can pursue permits from the town.

 

Peter Gibbs pointed out the red cedar woodland on lots #3 and #6 is not depicted on P-1 and should be shown. David Conard stated the intention was to show the red cedar woodland in a more general way. There are other incidents of red cedars on the parcel. Chris Galipeau stated the two areas noted by Mr. Gibbs can be shown on the plans.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about the buildable area on Lot #4. Chris Galipeau reviewed information on total lot size, building envelope size, and floating building envelope size per zoning regulation. Lot #4 is 30 acres. The building envelope is 3.16 acres. There is no floating building envelope restriction.  Reg Gignoux observed lots 1, 2, 3, and 6 are subject to the four acre floating building envelope maximum size and only two lots have fixed building envelopes at this point in time.

 

Jim Washburn mentioned the state wildlife expert recommends passage way for small animals under the fence every 500’ and this should be shown on the plans. Chris Galipeau noted the survey plat shows four types of fence changes corresponding to modifications to fencing. Mark Sammut asked about having permit conditions relative to fencing and noting fence conditions on the plat. David Conard agreed fence conditions should be on the plat, and having fencing as part of the permit makes the condition more obvious to the lot owner.

 

There was discussion of closing the evidentiary portion of the hearing now or allowing the applicant until the next meeting to answer questions raised by the DRB and then closing the evidence.  David Conard argued the application has been through an excess of hearings and the comments/concerns of the DRB have been addressed. Mr. Conard requested the DRB provide questions on the application in writing within two weeks in order for the applicant to address matters prior to the next meeting (thereby allowing the DRB to take action at the next meeting). There was mention of Mr. Gobeille attending the DRB meeting on June 4, 2008. David Conard interjected the comments by Mr. Gobeille have been addressed, and assured Mr. Cabot will not be redesigning the project to locate houses in the field as suggested by Mr. Gobeille.

 

There was discussion of wildlife habitat and corridors on the property being protected. Kay Kraushaar expressed concern about fragmenting the small patches of forest in the area, and questioned if all is being done to maintain the forested area. David Conard pointed out half of the deer wintering yard is on town land. David Conard also commented on the cutting restrictions on the Cabot parcel versus another development in town on land at the highest point in Shelburne where the DRB allowed building envelopes to the maximum PRD perimeter of 25’. With that development there is no cutting outside the envelope and no clear cutting within the envelope except by permission from the developer, and a house, tennis court, swimming pool, and garage are all allowed in the envelope.

 

There was discussion of the application relative to the Town Plan objectives, including maintaining agricultural lands, protecting wildlife habitat, identifying natural areas and minimizing impacts, impact on drinking water supply, and others.  David Conard stated the applicant takes the position the prior Town Plan, not the recently revised Town Plan, applies to the application. John Adams stated the Town Attorney advises the application should be reviewed under the current (revised) Town Plan.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/7/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Persis Worrall, Shelburne Natural Resources Conservation Committee, asked about lowering the fence and providing access underneath around the entire property for wildlife mobility. David Conard reiterated the fence is to keep people from trespassing and camping on the property. There is passageway for the animals.

 

Peg Rosenau, Shelburne Natural Resources Conservation Committee, said it is good to address how the application meshes with the Town Plan. Regarding animals adapting to the fence and access ways, there are animals that do not migrate from the forest and suffer when their habitat is affected.  The application falls short of wildlife moving in and out of the parcel. Animals may not find the areas to pass through the fence.  The fence is a barrier to keep people out, not an agricultural fence for animals, contended Ms. Rosenau, adding the fence will be electric and the development will become the “ultimate gated community” in Shelburne.  It was noted a lot owner cannot remove the fence on their property without approval from the internal design review committee.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB entered deliberative session at 9:22 p.m. and resumed the regular meeting at 10:12 p.m. Reg Gignoux stated the DRB still has some concerns and the revised legal documents from the applicant have not yet been reviewed by the Town Attorney. Also, the state wildlife expert can attend the DRB meeting on 6/4/08 so the DRB wants to continue the hearing until then.  The DRB will issues questions to the applicant within two weeks to allow time to respond before the next meeting. The DRB will meet in deliberative session on 5/13/08 at 5:30 p.m. to craft the questions.

 

David Conard asked the DRB to close the hearing and submit their questions to Mr. Gobeille for comment. Mr. Conard assured the applicant will not be submitting new information, and cautioned that the DRB may not be seeing the same plan if the current proposal is not approved (there could be 30 units proposed for the property rather than six). Steve Vock explained the applicant looked at the big picture when developing the proposal, not just one special interest as is the case with the wildlife expert.  Reg Gignoux pointed out deer habitat is in the town and state plans. The DRB must do what is right for the town as a whole. There must be a balance. Steve Vock observed every project has an impact. There must be a blend of impacts and improvements, not isolation of one impact. Staige Davis added so many pieces of each development are slightly in conflict; it is innate to the process that something will be in conflict. The establishment of the DRB was to streamline the review process, but it is not certain this was achieved with the current application. It is very frustrating that a consensus cannot be realized because there is conflict with something, said Mr. Davis.

 

David Conard again requested the DRB get their questions and answers from Mr. Gobeille in advance of the June 4^th meeting.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Brianne Riley, Dan Brunfield, John Koerner, Malcolm Willard, Chris Galipeau, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Picket Fence, 5462 Shelburne Rd., Brianne Riley (DR08-07)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Modify Existing Structure, 3310 Shelburne Road, Lake Champlain Transportation Company (CU08-04R1 & SP07-03R2)

·        Conditional Use & Site Plan Review, Site and Use Changes, 6305 Shelburne Road, John and Carol Koerner (CU05-05R2 & SP08-01)

·        Subdivision Amendment, Boundary Line Adjustment, 211 and 80 Ordway Shore Road, Van Wagenen/Swift (SUB06-08R2)

·        Conditional Use Review, Boathouse, 264 Clearwater Road, Andrea and James Crook, Jr. (CU08-08)

In the absence of Reg Gignoux, Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

Brianne Riley appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Riley stated the proposed basic white pressure treated wood picket fence will enclose the back yard. The large maple tree will remain. Fence will also be installed from the edge of the garage to the Shelburne Museum building. The purpose of the fence is to keep the dogs out of the garden and in the backyard area.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/21/08. It was noted the application was approved by the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC).

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Chris Galipeau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Galipeau stated the building is the former Dexter Shoes Store. Lake Champlain Transportation Company owns the site. There was a previously approved site plan, however, the current proposal is different. The footprint and setbacks are unchanged, but the front entry will be extended to include three dormers (the building footprint will not be closer to Route 7 than it is presently). There will be new concrete curbing. The dumpster location will be moved to south of the building. The gravel drive going behind the building will be removed. Additional site lighting will be installed. The log façade on the building will be replaced with vinyl siding (light beige color with darker colored trim). The roof will be charcoal colored shingles.  A six percent waiver of the parking requirement is requested which equates to one space for every 250 s.f. It is expected there will be three different retail uses in the building (each with its own dormered entryway). The lower level of the building will likely be storage space. A bike rack will be placed on the south side of the dormer by the new curbing. Comments from the Fire Chief will be addressed (i.e. sprinkler system, lock box, connections).

 

Peter Gibbs observed there are access doors on the side of building to the lower level. The parking is based on the square footage of the first floor only. Chris Galipeau reiterated the lower level will be used for storage, not additional retail space, otherwise the square footage must be included in the parking calculation. Mr. Gibbs mentioned having a condition of approval stating the downstairs area will not be used as retail space (otherwise the parking calculation for the site will not be accurate).

 

Mark Sammut asked about the berm across the west side of the property and if an excavation permit from the town was secured. John Adams stated a permit for the berm is not on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. Chris Galipeau said he did not know the purpose of the berm and it can either be removed if installed without the necessary permits or a permit secured after the fact.  Mr. Sammut stated the site plan should show the berm (show what is on-site) at the very least.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about lighting. Chris Galipeau stated there will be four new pole mounted fixtures surrounding the parking lot. Existing lights will be removed. A lighting plan for the site was submitted.  There will also be one new wall pack fixture on the north side of the building. Mark Sammut asked about a pole mounted light shining on the building. Peter Gibbs noted this would not meet town lighting standards. John Adams pointed out the light is one of Green Mountain Power’s floodlights.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/21/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Chris Galipeau and John Koerner appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Chris Galipeau explained the proposal to fill in a section of the existing building resulting in a rectangular shaped structure, removal of the gravel on the south side of the building, and expanding the gravel parking area on the north side to include designated employee parking on the front and north sides of the planted area. There is an on-site waste water system in the back of the building, but connection to municipal service will be done by installing a pump station to connect to the manhole north of the property. There is a sewer line easement across the property (across the Pecor property, not the Snelling property). The objective is to disturb the woods as little as possible.  The dumpster will be located in the rear of the building where an employee parking space was formerly located. The parking space will be relocated to the side of the building. There will be a designated handicap parking space. A bike rack will be placed on the north side of the building by the planter. Comments from the Fire Chief and Public Works Director will be addressed (i.e. lock box, waste water connection details, necessary permits).

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if there are two entrances to Route 7. Chris Galipeau stated the existing accesses are unchanged (there are two accesses). There will be no change to vehicle movement on the property. With the added parking area there will be smoother on-site circulation.

 

Peter Gibbs asked the purpose of the four parking spaces in front of the building. John Adams corrected the parking spaces are in the state’s right-of-way, not the town’s right-of-way as noted in the Staff Report. Chris Galipeau explained there are actually six parking spaces in the right-of-way and Mr. Koerner would prefer to keep the spaces. VTrans was contacted on the matter and indicated there are no plans for modification to the access to Route 7 at this point in time, but if the state decides to do improvements then the parking spaces will be eliminated.  There are 26 parking spaces on-site which meets (actually exceeds) the requirement. Staff recommended plantings in the location of the parking spaces by Route 7, but planting in the state’s right-of-way is not allowed without a special permit. Also, plantings would impact sight distance, stated Mr. Galipeau. Parking on the site will be delineated which is not the case presently.  There was brief discussion of granting a waiver for parking to allow elimination of the parking in the state’s right-of-way (a 20% waiver of the required 25 parking spaces equates to five spaces). Mr. Galipeau reiterated Mr. Koerner would like to keep the existing parking spaces. There was further discussion of parking. Kay Kraushaar asked if the parking at the northeast location can be eliminated if placement of the dumpster is not an issue. The applicant confirmed his decision to retain the parking as shown, including the spaces in the state’s right-of-way.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about lot coverage. Chris Galipeau stated lot coverage is presently at 62%, but the proposal reduces lot coverage to 60.8%. The curb cut and additional impervious area outside the property are not included in the lot coverage calculation.

 

Mark Sammut asked if something will be done with the retaining wall. Chris Galipeau said it is hoped the wall can be removed, leaving the natural rock.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about lighting. Mr. Galipeau stated the lighting plan shows additional site lighting. There will be two entry cut-off lights, one wall box light, and two pole mounted lights.

 

Mark Sammut asked if the business at the site will operate seasonally or year round. John Koerner stated the year round operation will be a mixed use farm stand, some manufacturing (baking), retail, and limited seating.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/21/08. It was noted the application was approved by the Historic Preservation and Design Review Committee (HP&DRC).  Signage was mentioned. Chris Galipeau stated there may be modifications to the existing lettering on the signs that are in place. John Adams explained a new sign requires a permit.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments.

 

 

Mark Sammut observed it is not the DRB’s jurisdiction to allow parking in the state’s right-of-way so the site plan should not include the spaces. VTrans can decide if the spaces remain or not. John Adams stated the applicant can seek authorization from the state for the parking. Chris Galipeau said VTrans indicated there is no problem with the parking spaces remaining as long as there are no changes to them. VTrans can remove the spaces at any time. The applicant sent a letter to VTrans acknowledging the situation. Plantings are not allowed in the state’s right-of-way without securing a highway access permit from VTrans.

 

Mark Sammut suggested the Public Works Director inspect the tie-in to the sewer manhole. Chris Galipeau said the state reviews all design criteria for the waste water system and the local public works department inspects connection to the municipal system.

 

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Chris Galipeau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Galipeau recalled previously Lola Van Wagenen and Peter Swift purchased the former Califano lot and adjusted their boundary lines to incorporate the additional land. A new road was built and landscaping was done. In the course of the work the two parties agreed the boundary line should be the center of the roadway and the right-of-way would come off the center line. With the proposed boundary line adjustment, the Van Wagenen lot will gain .05 acre from the Swift parcel and the Swift lot will gain .26 acre from the Van Wagenen parcel.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/21/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Malcolm Willard appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Willard explained the boathouse will be in the same location as the existing dock house structure and will be seasonally used. The new structure will be 12.2’ in height with a four foot overhang in front and a two foot overhang around the rest of the building. The water line from the main house will be extended to the boathouse for water supply. There is a privately held six inch sewer line serving the houses in the development. The plan is to tap into this line with a four inch pipe for sewer service to the boathouse. The sewer line is a gravity feed into the town’s pump station. A back flow valve will be installed for the boathouse.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 5/21/08. There was brief discussion of the issue of abandonment. Mr. Willard confirmed the dock house has been in continuous use by the property owners.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.