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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Jim & Pat Collins, Stacy Walbridge, Tom Bessette, Tiffany Caldwell, John Roberts, Debbie Mintz, Jeremy Matosky, Ben Lawton, Lois Obregon, Christena Obregon, Clint West, Bruce Beeken, Dave Marshall, Ian Jewkes, Oda Hubbard, Chris Von Trapp, Trafton Crandall, Stuart Morrow, L. Paul Irish, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Skylights, 27 McCabe Circle, Roy/Caldwell (DR08-09)

·        Design Review, Addition, 130 Village Vale Drive, Killkelley (DR08-10)

·        Design Review, Porch Restoration, 5224 Shelburne Road, Tracy House Associates/Senior (DR08-11)

·        Design Review, Siding, 5851 Shelburne Road, Bessette (DR08-12)

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

·        Appeal, Notice of Violation, 44 Fieldstone Way, Waxler (A08-07)

·        Subdivision Final Plan Review, Four Lots, 167 & 197 Mt. Philo Road, Beeken/West (SUB08-01)

·        Subdivision Preliminary Plan Review, Six Lots, 539 Irish Hill Road, Lissarrague (SUB92-7R1)

·        Appeal, Notice of Violation, 2522 Shelburne Road, Beldock (A08-10)

Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:04 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.

 

Tiffany Caldwell appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Caldwell explained the request to add two additional skylights on the house roof (at the pitch of the roof).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08. John Adams stated the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Brian Killkelley appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Killkelley explained the plan to extend the south end of the house by 16 feet with the same clapboard and siding design and color. Trim, shingles, and new windows will match existing materials. The original house size is 20’x 30’.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08. John Adams stated the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself from review of the application. Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of the chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08. John Adams said the applicant plans to restore the existing porch by reusing existing materials as much as possible.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Reg Gignoux returned to the DRB and resumed the duties of chairman.

 

Tom Bessette appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bessette stated the north end of the house is badly in need of repair. New materials will match the existing house color and the work will be in character with other houses in the neighborhood.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Ian Jewkes with Krebs & Lansing Engineering appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Jewkes explained the driveway for the two lot subdivision on Bishop Road (by the quarry) went through wetlands originally, but the location of the driveway has been changed since the subdivision approval in 1990 to match the permits. The application is to formalize the relocated right-of-way/easement. Regarding connection to the sewer manhole, there are blanket easements however following discussion with Mr. Pendar it was decided to secure another easement so the documentation is clear. The attorney is drafting the appropriate language.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Adams reported a telephone request from the appellant to withdraw the appeal was received. The request has not yet been received in writing. Jim Washburn asked when fines go into effect as it appears the appellant will have a “grace period” from March to November if the request to remove the pool by November is granted. Mr. Washburn felt the pool should be removed immediately. John Adams explained if the appellant does not remove the pool by November 15, 2008 the Town, in court, can seek relief retroactive to March 4, 2008 when the Notice of Violation was issued. Mr. Adams said he felt as the Zoning Administrator that it was reasonable to allow until November to remove the pool. Reg Gignoux pointed out the appellant recommended a date five years hence to November, 2008. John Adams explained the DRB needs to decide if there is a violation. Discussion of policy (i.e. the Zoning Administrator’s determination of when the pool must be removed) can occur outside of the appeal.

 

Pat Collins, neighbor to the appellant, asked if a variance can be granted for the situation. John Adams stated all variance criteria must be met and the appellant’s situation cannot meet the criteria. Jim Collins expressed concern about a possible procedure that will allow extension of the November date.

 

 

Bruce Beeken, Clint West, and Dave Marshall (Civil Engineering Associates) appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bruce Beeken reviewed the effort with neighbors to resolve potential drainage problems that may be caused by the proposed development.  There were meetings with the neighbors and the neighbors’ engineer to identify potential solutions to the drainage situation. The ideal solution is to underground a pipe across properties to drain into John Street at the lower level. This will require participation (consent and investment of money) from many neighbors. No one was interested in that level of investment, stated Mr. Beeken. The best case solution is to improve the swale on the Walbridge property (back yard) which will help the water drain out of their yard as well as help the water drain from properties above the Walbridge lot. Improving the swale in conjunction with the proposal for the Beeken and West lots will improve the current John Street drainage situation and add no additional water from the Beeken and West properties.  Mr. Beeken said when he met with the neighbors to discuss drainage there was also discussion of screening.  Ben Lawton, neighbor, had concern about car headlights shining onto his property from the driveway. There will be additional plantings on the property line (West/Lawton/Obregon line) to minimize car lights from the driveway, stated Mr. Beeken. Final Plan drawings, dated June 15, 2008, reflect the discussions with neighbors. Prior to the submission Mr. Beeken said he met with John Roberts who wanted more detailed discussion of screening between the Beeken/Roberts parcels. Mr. Roberts wants privacy at his house. A copy of the site plan drawing was promised to Mr. Roberts’ engineer.  A landscaping expert did visit the property on 7/15/08 to review screening. There is an existing line of 12 white cedars trees on the Beeken property planted 3.5’ in from the property line ranging in height from 4.5’ to 6.5’ due to competition with the existing silver maple tree on the neighbor’s property. There is new growth this year on the cedars ranging from 16” to four inches so the trees are growing.  The screening proposal includes staggering the planting of 16 trees six foot on center roughly between the existing trees on the Mintz side of the property. Pruning the silver maple tree from the bottom up will provide more light to the existing cedars and new plantings. The new plantings will be more on the Beeken property to allow for more light to the trees. Mr. Beeken noted there are two modifications to the site plan, including the updated planting schedule to match the drawings (65 new cedar trees, six evergreen trees, one crabapple tree, and four sugar maples) and a note that the easement between the West and Beeken parcels for the driveway shall be maintained. The driveway maintenance agreement also applies to the new tree plantings (i.e. dead trees will be replaced). Mr. Beeken stressed every possible overture has been made with the neighbors to communicate and acknowledge legitimate concerns. It is hoped the concerns have successfully been incorporated into the proposal.

 

Peter Gibbs clarified the current proposal is not to go to the Jackson property with the swales and pipes to John Street, but rather to discharge onto the Walbridge property following improvement of the existing swale and eventually having the water drain to John Street. Mr. Gibbs commented the current proposal is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Beeken confirmed the proposal is not shown on the plan because the engineer felt a survey would need to be done as well as considerable engineering work. When the swale is installed on the Beeken property the existing swale on the Walbridge property will be re-established and this will improve the water drainage route.  Reg Gignoux asked if the plan before the DRB is the one that makes sense, works, and is reasonably acceptable to the majority of the neighborhood. Mr. Beeken said it is his understanding that is so, but it is believed the neighbors’ engineer has some concerns.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ben Lawton, neighbor, noted the neighbors could not make an adequate appraisal of the proposed plan so an engineer was hired to do this. Mr. Beeken was made aware the neighbors hired an engineer themselves.

 

Dick Elkins asked if the town will be approached regarding access to the storm water drain since more water will be added. Peter Gibbs pointed out a condition of preliminary plan approval included managing storm water on-site or draining into the town system. The applicant needs to explain which approach is to be followed.

 

Jeremy Matosky, engineer for the neighbors, submitted a letter delineating his concerns about the proposal to the DRB. Mark Sammut commented receiving the letter a half hour before the meeting is not fair to anyone. Mr. Matosky apologized for the late submittal.

 

Christena Obregon, neighbor, stated the applicant’s engineer (Civil Engineering Associates) would not supply flow information so a determination of how well the system will work could not be made.  Also, at the last meeting the applicant changed the site plan. Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Association (CEA), stated the proposal is to manage storm water on-site. Mr. Marshall explained how this will happen, assuring there will be no more run off than existing conditions. In fact, less run off is anticipated. The water will be going to the northeast corner of the project site and onto the Walbridge property. There will be retention basins. The historical standards used by the Town of Shelburne for a two year and 25 year storm were used to determine adverse impacts of the project. There is a drainage easement on the West side of the project. Mr. Beeken discussed with neighbors the improvements that result in less “ponding” of backwater on adjacent properties. With the on-site system there is a net improvement to two properties to the east and no increase in flow on the receiving lots.

 

Trafton Crandall, engineer representing the Mintz and Roberts properties, stated the closed drainage system is the desired solution for all parties, but because the neighbors do not want to share in the cost the option is not under consideration. The neighbors are not the parties doing the development or subdividing to sell the lots. The Town of Shelburne regulations, both the subdivision regulations and the public works specifications, state any concerns about impacts to downstream properties should be adequately addressed. Section 4 of the Public Works Specifications deals with storm water calculations and Agency of Natural Resources rules. Different standards have been established to deal with storm water rather than the two year and 25 year storm. The subdivision regulations (Section 9780.3) indicate downstream impacts are the responsibility of the subdivider. The concern is the lack of a pipe solution. Presently, water backs up. There is ground and surface water and lots of flooding, especially if the drain is clogged in the spring time. Mr. Crandall stated there will be an increase in the volume of water. There is already trouble dealing with existing water from existing development. The soils are clay and not conducive to infiltration. Dave Marshall interjected the design of the proposed drainage system will provide for infiltration.

 

The town’s state permit for the drainage system on John Street was again mentioned. Peter Gibbs expressed concern about opening the state permit for a change in drainage, noting the applicant is proposing drainage treatment in swales (attenuating on-site), and there are existing swales on the Walbridge and Jackson properties so drainage from the applicant’s proposed development should not impact the state permit. Jeremy Matosky said the neighbors want the proper conveyance to receiving water if the flow is not increasing and the drainage is being handled on-site because that is not the existing conditions. Mr. Roberts expressed concern about the Walbridges changing their minds regarding the proposed improvements.  Peter Gibbs pointed out again the proposed drainage system is not shown on the site plan. Bruce Beeken explained it is proposed that a system be engineered to retain water on-site and decrease water on the neighbors’ property. As a bonus the Walbridge swale will be improved and maintained per their deed. There will be a maintenance clause in the deeds when the Beeken/West lots are conveyed. The maintenance will be specified for the retention system on the property. Additional water will not spill onto neighboring properties. The existing water drainage situation will improve even if the improvements are not done to the Walbridge’s swale.  Clint West added the proposed system was engineered to work without involving neighboring properties. Dave Marshall acknowledged there will be run off, but not greater than existing conditions based on the design of the system, and there will be retention on-site to mitigate the increase in volume which is due to more impervious surface. The sump in the basins will be increased. There will still be gravity flow. Water flow, existing conditions, for the two year storm is approximately .55 cfs. Trafton Crandall reiterated the perfect solution is a hard pipe drain through the back yards of the properties. The applicant’s plan on paper to treat on-site looks like it would work, but the data on pre- and post-construction flows, volume in the pond, and flow to the Jackson property is needed.  Jeremy Matosky asked if there are basements planned for the proposed houses, noting there is little relief between the swale and the properties on John Street and the footprint of the houses. Sump pumps will be needed to pump ground water. Clint West stressed the objective was to do the development right so an engineer was hired to draft a good plan and meet the concerns expressed, but at every meeting there have been problems. The project has taken a long time. There have been numerous meetings with neighbors. It is not known what else can be done to satisfy the issues.  A neighbor pointed out that everyone is working through the process together, but the neighbors do not have the engineering and technical knowledge to review the plan like an engineer.

 

Mark Sammut asked how the plan went from on-site treatment to off site treatment. Bruce Beeken explained originally a pipe to the drain in the cul-de-sac on John Street was shown, but a right-of-way across land owned by the condominium association was needed. An agreement could not be finalized with the association so an alternate plan was developed, and through that process the economic advantages of a retention system became apparent. A letter from Steve Vock indicated he would be satisfied with a hard pipe system or an on-site retention system.

 

Christena Obregon, neighbor, stated the neighbors hired an attorney to work with the applicant’s attorney on the agreement, but there was no communication between parties. The applicant changed their plans twice and the neighbors did not have an opportunity to review the revisions. The neighbors feel the applicant is not trying to work together which is frustrating. Ms. Obregon spoke of the potential impact on views and privacy by the proposal as well as the potential impact on property values.

 

Debbie Mintz, neighbor, stressed the neighbors clearly communicated they had to have their engineer review the plan once it was on paper. There is no intention to bring items up or create problems at the 11^th hour.

 

Mark Sammut questioned why the hydro numbers are not released. Dave Marshall stated there is no run off proposed on the neighbors’ properties. The numbers will be shared with the Walbridges. Public Works and the town’s engineer have reviewed the drainage plans. Mr. Crandall stated the neighbors need to have the proposed system proved by the data, not just the word of the applicant. Mr. Marshall offered that Mr. Crandall can run the calculations himself. Clint West stated if the proposal meets the town’s regulations then the applicant is not obligated to provide information to the neighbors. The situation has become very frustrating, said Mr. West.

 

There was discussion of screening. Christena Obregon stated the Roberts had an arborist review existing screening and the proposed plantings. Debbie Mintz submitted a letter regarding screening and suggestions from the arborist. Ms. Mintz expressed concern for privacy and mitigating the impact of the proposed development on the sale-ability of their property. Ms. Mintz said she would like a guarantee that there is screening before construction and that the trees will be at least seven or eight feet tall. The arborist gave suggestions on enhancing the screening with cedars. Some of the existing cedars are 11’ apart, not six feet apart. Ms. Mintz said she would like the trees to be spaced three or four feet apart. According to the arborist the existing trees will not do well where they are planted. It would be acceptable to plant the trees farther from the property line and to stagger the plantings.  There is concern about the viability of the existing plantings and not providing adequate screening so replacement should occur if the desired screening does not result.

 

Peter Gibbs summarized the additional proposed plantings, drainage improvements, and easements need to be shown on the site plan. Legal documentation pertaining to all agreements needs to be submitted as well.  Mark Sammut said he would like to see documentation on the maintenance of the storm water system and buy-in by all properties impacted. Water flow information should be made available. Jim Washburn suggested the run off drain into the town sewer or flow naturally. If residents want the run off to drain then evidence of efforts to offer easement(s) to the applicant should be provided.  Dave Marshall said there is no problem providing the information to the DRB. Data have already been provided to the Public Works Department. There was continued discussion of on-site mitigation of water flow and additional cooperative effort with the neighbors to improve the drainage swale. Peter Gibbs pointed out when an applicant proposes to do off-site improvements the DRB usually receives a plan showing the improvements. Bruce Beeken recalled the charge was to demonstrate that water is not being added off site. Peter Gibbs clarified information was provided on off-site improvements that are needed to meet the condition of Preliminary Plan approval, not relative to increasing water off site. Mr. Beeken stressed the plan satisfies the charge, but also helps expedite remediation of the existing water problems in the area (i.e. while the project is being built, the improvements on neighboring property can be done). The off site improvements are not part of the application, but above and beyond what is needed. Peter Gibbs asked if the addition of tree plantings is part of the plan (referencing the letter dated July 16, 2008). Mr. Beeken confirmed this, noting what is drawn reflects all the trees that were discussed. The written schedule that describes the drawing was incorrectly stated. The planting schedule was updated to reflect what was drawn, and that has not changed since June 15, 2008.

 

A gentleman in the audience commented the proposed six foot tall trees will not block the light from cars coming down the driveway.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB entered deliberative session at 9:25 p.m. to discuss the application. Deliberative session was adjourned and the regular meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m.

 

 

Dick Elkins returned to the DRB.

 

Dave Marshall, Oda Hubbard, and Chris Von Trapp appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Dave Marshall explained the proposal for re-approval of three lots fronting Spear Street and two lots fronting off of Thompson Road plus an existing house and remaining property associated with the house remaining open. A boundary survey has been done. The boundary lines were modified to avoid steep sections of land per the recommendation of staff and the subdivision regulations. The lots will be connected to the municipal sewer system via an easement to the line on Spear Street, except Lot #1 and Lot #2 which will use a force main to pump to the system on Irish Hill Road. There will be private wells for water supply.  The approval in 1992 showed five lots fronting Spear Street. This plan was withdrawn and replaced with the current proposal. There will be more change to the boundary line in the northeast corner of the property to increase the James lot to .7 acres. The building envelopes are consistent with the existing regulations and the setbacks are shown on the plan. Another option is to remove the lines of the building envelopes and stipulate the current regulations must be met when the property is developed.  Reg Gignoux noted the DRB must review the proposal under both sets of regulations. John Adams advised it should be clarified there are building envelopes on lots 1-5 or if development within the setbacks to the current or proposed setbacks is being allowed. The DRB may want to have a building envelope depicted on Lot #6.  Dave Marshall stated the building envelopes will be set in relation to the existing neighbors and characteristics of the site.  Reg Gignoux suggested significant natural features/resources (i.e. cliffs) be shown as well.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/16/08. John Adams stated the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee has received the forest management plan for the property associated with the current use program, and a map showing the wildlife tracker’s data. Formal comments have not been provided from the committee. An emailed message from Alice Lissarrague regarding the land trust was provided to the DRB.

 

Reg Gignoux asked how much land will be removed from the current use program. Chris Von Trapp stated all five lots plus an area around the house were excluded from the current use program when the property was enrolled in the program. No additional land will be removed from the program. Portions of the plan are being implemented this season with recommendations from the forester. Peter Gibbs asked if an inventory plan is part of the sketch plan approval. John Adams stated the information is contained in the current use program documentation.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Morrow, neighbor, asked if the westerly boundary of lots 3, 4, and 5 were changed. Dave Marshall stated the boundary was moved easterly off the steep embankment. Mr. Morrow noted the line was actually moved 70’ westerly from the location shown on the 1990 sketch plan. Mr. Morrow asked if a no cut zone on Spear Street, a 75’ front setback, and a 35’ setback on the north for Lot #5 would be considered to alleviate the possible zoning change to a 15’ setback which is not a very large area. The lots in reality are not close to the village so the setbacks targeted for higher density may not be appropriate in this case. Mr. Morrow asked if view easements will be part of the process, suggesting specifying view easements for lots 3, 4, and 5 especially.  Dave Marshall assured a program for review by the DRB will be submitted. There was discussion of future lot owners creating mutually agreed upon view easements. Reg Gignoux suggested the agreements be consistent across all lots (i.e. language in the deeds).

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.