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

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

OTHERS PRESENT:            David Huff, Tom Koerner, P. Pinder, G. Pinder, David Conard, Stephen Vock, Chris Galipeau, John Gobeille, Gail Albert, Persis M. Worrell, Alec Webb, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Façade Sign, 65 Falls Rd., David Huff (DR08-08)

·        Subdivision Amendment, Relocate Right-of-Way, 15 Bishop Road, Dennis Demers (SUB90-08R1)

·        Subdivision Amendment, Modify Building Envelope, 370 Monarch Road, Eric & Deborah Morris (SUB03-04R2)

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

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.

David Huff appeared on behalf of the application.

 

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 6/4/08. Dick Elkins asked if there are height restrictions on signage (i.e. façade sign allowed on the second story of a structure). John Adams stated there are no restrictions on wall mounted signs.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. John Adams noted the applicant requested the application be continued until June 18^th.

 

 

Eric Morris appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself from the DRB.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Morris explained the proposal to construct a horse barn (for two horses) on his property. The best site is outside the building envelope in between two stands of trees. The structure will not require cutting trees or clearing of land. The barn will not be visible to neighbors to the north, west, or east. There are no houses to the south. The applicant reviewed the location of the existing building envelope relative to the proposed location of the barn. The building envelope is 250’x 150’ (.86 acre).  The in-ground swimming pool behind the house is at the edge of the building envelope.

 

Reg Gignoux asked if shifting the existing building envelope by 25’ will impact the pool. Mr. Morris stated shifting the envelope will put the pool outside of the building envelope. The request is to extend the existing envelope rather than shift the location. Kay Kraushaar asked if the barn will be in the treed area. Mr. Morris said it would not.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/4/08. Kay Kraushaar asked about setting a precedent. John Adams noted there are few impacts associated with expanding the building envelope on the site. Letters were sent to neighbors about the proposal. No responses were received.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the DRB.

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

There was discussion of fencing and passage way for animals. John Gobeille clarified the woven wire fence along Bay Road and Harbor Road noted in his report is actually a split rail fence. Portions are electrified, but that is not an issue for animals. There are gaps that allow passage. Deer can jump over the fence. David Conard added there is board fence on the north side on Harbor Road to the swale and then woven wire fence as the fence line breaks away from the road.  The electric wire will not be higher than the top of the fence.  Kay Kraushaar asked about the three strand barbed wire fencing (40” high). Mr. Gobeille confirmed barbed wire is better than the split rail because it allows the greatest movement for wildlife (there is much permeability even with three or four strands of wire). Ms. Kraushaar asked what type of fencing is used for cows. Alec Webb stated Shelburne Farms uses New Zealand style electric fencing (single strand barbed wire).  Jim Washburn asked if three or four strands of barbed wire fencing with electric is better than an electric fence. Mr. Gobeille stated wire fencing that prevents deer from jumping over it is opposed. If the electric wire and fence are below what the deer can jump that is fine. There are signs of coyote kills in the woven fence area on the Cabot property (coyotes trapping deer in the corners of the fence).  Reg Gignoux recognized the strand wire fence does not alleviate the trespassing issue. Steve Vock pointed out the applicant spent much money on fencing so salvaging the fence versus a complete replacement is acceptable.  David Conard stated the fence wire is being lowered all along the north border, in the corner, in the buffer, and in areas greater than the appropriate distance from the bike path. The corner where the coyotes are corralling and trapping deer is eliminated.

 

There was discussion of the building areas. Reg Gignoux asked if the building envelopes reduced in size will significantly change the impact of the development. Mr. Gobeille stated there is no change in impact because of the dispersed nature of the six units (residents will have pets and other impacts by their house sites). Peter Gibbs clarified the house sites in the forest area is the impact, not the size of the building envelope or the amount of tree cutting. There was a question about accessory buildings within the building envelope and clustering buildings. David Conard stated the building envelopes on Lot 4 and Lot 5 with the structures within are as shown on the site plan. On the remainder of the lots the owners will designate up to four acres on each lot for the building envelop and the structures will be within that envelope (floating envelope). The four acres must be contained within the designated area on the site plan and must be contiguous. Lot 6 contains the quarry, rock outcroppings, and forest. The applicant is proposing a low density development. If houses were to be clustered there would be more units proposed. The issue of the building envelopes going to the setbacks was discussed at length, said Mr. Conard, adding Mr. Cabot did not want the building envelope to intrude on the perimeter so there is 150’ setback which is triple the town’s requirement. Also, there are huge areas cut out and the building envelopes reduced dramatically based on the wildlife expert’s advice.  Mr. Conard noted Reg Gignoux suggested the floating building envelopes of four acres each. The applicant will not hamstring the lot owner as to where a building must be located. People buying the lots will be concerned about aesthetics and wildlife, assured Mr. Conard.

 

There was discussion of forest terrain and character of the area. Mr. Gobeille confirmed dead trees should remain because they provide habitat for some animals. Safety issues with trees should be addressed however. Reg Gignoux commented on clearing out invasive species which could result in clearing over 60% of an area and the difficulty in eradicating the plants. Mr. Gobeille agreed invasive species are a problem worsening all over the state.  Dave Conard noted the forester found the basal area has lots of native species. Limiting cutting outside the building envelop to 30% is very restrictive to maintain the Silva cultural forest management practices.

 

There was discussion of impact on wildlife. Mr. Gobeille stated the deer yard will be completely impacted. There will be lots of deer, but they will not have a place to go in winter due to the development. The deer will likely move to another deer yard elsewhere. There is a deer yard behind the Blodgett building and one south of Shelburne Pond. There is also obcat on the property. Bobcat is a sensitive species. The state is currently conducting a study of two radio collared bobcats on the Cabot and TNC properties. The animals hunt on Shelburne Farms and Shelburne Point. They have dens and this area needs to be undisturbed and quiet. The bobcat will be affected by human activity on the Cabot site. Forest interior bird species (Hermit Thrush, for example) could be impacted, too. Turkeys and other common bird species (robins, sparrows) will likely not be affected and in fact may benefit from clearing of the land.  Dean Pierce asked for clarification on whether modifying the size of the building envelopes will make no difference or not have a significant difference on impact. Mr. Gobeille stated there is significant impact to sensitive wildlife and not such a significant impact to less sensitive wildlife. Mr. Pierce asked if a smaller envelope will have a benefit. Mr. Gobeille stated clearing more or less land within the building lot will be a benefit to some species. Robins may like more clearing while bobcats will not like clearing. David Conard asked the minimum contiguous area of conifer cover needed for effective deer wintering area. Mr. Gobeille stated review of scat and tree scarring evidence reveals deer yards are typically 40-50 acres in size. With the Cabot property two-thirds of the deer yard is on the Cabot land and the remainder is on town owned land. Mr. Conard estimated the deer yard on town land is approximately 40 acres in size.  Reg Gignoux asked if the deer population will decrease as deer yards are decreased. Mr. Gobeille stated there is not a direct ratio. Winter weather, snow, and temperature impact deer mortality. Staige Davis asked what is needed in square miles for a healthy deer herd. John Gobeille explained in higher elevations there is less than one deer per mile, but in the Champlain Valley with agriculture there are five or six deer per mile. There are lots of deer on Shelburne Farms. The deer are being forced onto Shelburne Farms due to surrounding development. There are many deer fawning areas on Shelburne Farms, and more doe than buck. The state issues bow permits for Shelburne Farms in an attempt to thin out the doe herd.  If there is lots of damage to vegetation then more permits will be issued.

 

Steve Vock pointed out existing versus proposed conditions on the Cabot property in that there are two existing residential units in the center of the wooded area. Dave Conard added Mr. Cabot proposed the project as is because he felt this is the best project for the property. The layout and roadways are built on work by Frederick Law Olmstead, the prominent landscape architect who also did Shelburne Farms. Lots of work was done to uncover and rehabilitate old roads on the property. Mr. Cabot is interested in maintaining a vegetative buffer as a direct build on what Mr. Olmstead did on Shelburne Farms. The proposal is not a tight suburban subdivision. Each lot exceeds 18 acres. There are forest management issues not handled with tree cutting restrictions outlined for the Boulder Hill development, for example. The DRB needs to balance values and issues. Views, prime ag soils, deer yard issues should be handled by the local board, not a judge in Brattleboro, advised Mr. Conard. Mr. Conard asked if the questions and procedure put forth are being asked of every major subdivision applicant, such as requesting maps showing the acres of the building envelope involved in wetlands or deer wintering areas.  Reg Gignoux pointed out the application is the first large project before the current DRB. Dick Elkins confirmed the questions being asked are not different from those presented to other applicants. Steve Vock contended the questions were received late in the process (i.e. the questions should have been received at preliminary review not final review). The issues being raised should have been brought forth in the beginning of the process.

 

David Conard addressed the questions listed in the memo from the DRB to Civil Engineering Associates, dated 5/20/08 as follows:

Map D-1 shows the area of the four acre building envelopes (floating and set) and the roads within the mapped deer wintering area. The building envelope acreage involved in the deer yard is zero on Lot 1, 2.5 acres on Lot 2, 2.5 acres on Lot 3, 2.8 acres on Lot 4, 2.1 acres on Lot 5 and 1.6 acres on Lot 6.

 

Map S-1 shows prime agricultural soils within building envelopes. The building envelope acreage involved in prime ag soils is .4 acre on Lot 1, .05 acre on Lot 2, .6 acre on Lot 3, .9 acre on Lot 4, 2.4 acres on Lot 5, and 1.1 acres on Lot 6. Steve Vock noted Act 250 would consider the percentage to be insignificant and not require mitigation.

 

The applicant’s information on this issue is from the Jesse Mohr report.

 

An enlarged version of the view area map by Peter Marshall Owens and Associates done for the Town of Shelburne was overlaid on the site plan revealing there are no building envelopes involved in prominent view areas. Possibly only part of a building envelope is in the medium view area. The proposal preserves existing viewsheds.

 

There is only one wetland area that is mapped by the state (the area is the boundary between lots 1 and 2). There is no roadwork or utility work in the area, and no building envelopes are near the wetlands. The state wetlands map does not show the wetlands found by Jesse Mohr which are being preserved by Mr. Cabot. There are some limitations and overlap with the state maps with regard to prime ag soils and wetlands.

 

Total area is .8 acres on Lot 3 and .6 acres on Lot 6.

 

It appears per the Mohr report that there are no specific areas of conflict near the building envelopes.

 

There is nothing to add to the Mohr report.

 

Slope data based on LIDAR is shown on the site plan. A permit condition stating that finished grades or roads and driveways shall not exceed 15% and that there shall be compliance with the state erosion control handbook is acceptable.

 

The quarry was in existence when the large building on Shelburne Farms was constructed (over 100 years ago) so since the 1800s there has been disturbance. There has been cutting, grading, utilities installed and a foundation built on the site (all necessary permits were secured for this work).

 

None proposed other than the two set building envelopes and the four floating building envelopes.

 

Copies of maps will be provided to the DRB. Regarding an information table on the basal area, lot-by-lot, this involves a week of work, a crew, and computer analysis. It is suggested the information be submitted to the town prior to commencement of improvements on the land (tree cutting, roads, and such). Restrictions similar to those imposed on the Sugarwoods development are acceptable.

 

Dave Conard said he will provide the DRB with the written answers to the questions in the DRB memo as well as the refreshed covenants (on-site design review committee will include a member from Shelburne Farms if Tom Cabot is not available) and fence modifications as discussed. There is no change to the Harbor Road fields agreement with Shelburne Farms.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 6/4/08. Dean Pierce asked about data on core habitat. David Conard said he could not find reference to “core habitat location” in Jesse Mohr’s report. John Adams noted staff offered to provide the information on core habitat location. There is a map in the Town Plan (both the current and previous plans).  Staff offered to provide a map of the slopes and core habitat areas to the DRB. Dave Conard requested the same information. There was discussion of the accuracy level of slope data from LIDAR. Dean Pierce stated the information is accurate to two feet. GIS can be used to make a grid and the slope can then be generated. Dave Conard felt the questions/issues should have been raised at preliminary review, not final review, adding this is the fourth Final Plat hearing. The applicant has spent tens of thousands of dollars to answer questions asked by the DRB and staff.  Reg Gignoux reiterated this is the first time the current DRB membership has seen the application at Final review. The DRB needs to be thorough with applications. Dave Conard rebutted the application is new to only two members on the DRB, not the full board.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Alec Webb stated Shelburne Farms has been working on the effort to ensure long term protection of the landscape on Shelburne Farms and the sense of entry at Harbor/Bay Road so it is important and there is significant landscape maintenance value that the easement be granted to the farm.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

The Board entered deliberative session at 9 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:20 p.m.

 

Reg Gignoux stated the evidentiary portion can be closed. Staff will provide information on habitat conflict and the LIDAR map for slopes. The applicant will also receive the information. David Conard stated it is not appropriate for the DRB to make a decision based on evidence not presented during the hearing. Dean Pierce offered to provide crude information showing the approximate location of the parcel boundary and overall buildable areas. Reg Gignoux suggested another option could be to continue the hearing until the next meeting to allow for additional information. Mr. Conard agreed to the evidence being closed with the proviso that the applicant receive the two additional maps under discussion and if the DRB relies on the maps for evidence then the hearing will be reopened. Dean Pierce asked if there is a statutory regulation requiring the hearing to be reopened. Mr. Conard said he was not aware of one.

 

Language in the current Town Plan regarding slopes was reviewed. Mr. Conard said the applicant is fine with the slope map and a permit condition relative to the 15% grade.

 

There was further discussion of the core habitat area map. Mr. Conard expressed concern about the map and what the core habitat represents, adding the map was made from an aerial flyover while the applicant had two biology experts provide testimony after on-site investigations. The experts were present before the DRB to answer questions as well. Mr. Conard contended it is inappropriate to slow the process to analyze what the map is showing. Mr. Gobeille stated the map shows core habitat some of which overlaps the deer wintering yard. Dean Pierce read language in the current Town Plan relative to core habitat area. Mr. Conard stated on behalf of the applicant there are serious concerns with regard to the maps and the procedure. The applicant was reprimanded for not submitting maps showing slope and core habitat area while staff had the maps specifically generated for the project and produced them now, late in the process. Reg Gignoux interjected the staff did offer the data to the applicant. Dick Elkins recalled he referenced the habitat map at the first hearing on the application. Mr. Conard objected to the core habitat map because Jesse Mohr has not reviewed and commented on the map. The applicant believes the Mohr report addresses the issues. Reg Gignoux summarized the map dictating slope data is added to evidence with the applicant’s concurrence, but the applicant objects to the core habitat map generated by staff at the 6/4/08 DRB meeting. Steve Vock stressed the applicant had an analysis and complete report done and that is the evidence for core habitat. The analysis/report should stand on its own merits.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.