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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator; Dean Pierce, Town Planner; Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Debbie Mintz, Jeremy Matosky, Lois Obregon, Christena Obregon, Clint West, Bruce Beeken, Sara Beeken, Dave Marshall, Oda Hubbard, Chris Von Trapp, Trafton Crandall, Stuart Morrow, David Webster, Monica Varsakepolos, James Kouisir, Richard Jackson, Joe Gallagher, Craig Smith, Vicki Carleton, Richard Williams, Abigail Miller, Bob Ryder, Sharon Barton, Cherie Roberts, Eleanor Richardson, Charlie Brush, John Giebink, Alice and Christophe Lissarrague, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Sign, 603 Falls Road, Fairpoint Communications (DR08-14)

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

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

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

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road & 82 Shelburnewood Drive, Green Mountain Development Group/Shelburnewood, LLC (SUB08-03)

Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7:05 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.

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. John Adams noted the applicant lives far away and is available via telephone if necessary. The application is a simple sign replacement (Verizon to Fairpoint Communications).

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

None.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/6/08. John Adams said the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the sign application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Alice Lissarrague appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Lissarrague reported the no cut zones between parcels on the northern lot and the Morrow lot have been adjusted. There is a 35’ no cut zone as well as the 75’ no cut zone along Spear Street. A map showing the proposed lots and undeveloped area as well as optional land for lots for family members in the future was given to the DRB. The family lots are 2.4 acres each. House locations on the family lots have been identified. The houses will not be seen from the road. The area for the family lots is just being set aside for future use, not actually subdivided from the larger parcel at this time (i.e. not part of the current application). The lots may not be subdivided from the larger parcel if future family members do not want the parcels. The land will remain in the current use program at present.

 

Reg Gignoux noted lots 3, 4, and 5 were adjusted to show topographic constraints of the land. The James lot has been adjusted (increased) by a third of an acre to provide more protection from development.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/31/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stuart Morrow, neighbor, noted the cutting restrictions mention allowing a formal privacy hedge, but “privacy hedge” needs to be well defined. Mr. Morrow said he would like some input on what is considered a privacy hedge because one person may feel two foot high rose bushes constitute a privacy hedge which may not be adequate for screening. Also, if the hedge is planted outside the 35’ no cut zone then there is not a problem, but if the hedge is planted inside the zone a wide swath will be cut in order to plant the hedge. Oda Hubbard questioned how a hedge can be planted if cutting of the trees is not allowed. Mr. Morrow mentioned the view easement language and suggested the view easements be depicted on the recorded plat since boundaries stated as “due west” or “top of the ridge” are not well defined. The applicant agreed to clarify the language.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Joe Fallon and Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the appeal. Attorney Fallon stated cars are parked in the parking lot per Paragraph 4 of Section 1690.7 of the Shelburne zoning bylaws which allows outdoor display without a temporary display permit if the items are accessory to the business and the display is neat and not obstructive to the site.  There are 55 parking spaces in the lot and not more than 55 cars there. The cars do not block the parking area. Dean Pierce, Shelburne Town Planner, stated an accessory use must be accessory to activity on the same parcel otherwise the alternative would be chaos. Mr. Fallon rebutted there are many parking lots in town with cars that are not part of the enterprise. The appellant, Gregg Beldock, feels as though he is being singled out.

 

Reg Gignoux asked about rent being paid for parking. Gregg Beldock stated the property was adopted with the lease in place. Nissan paid Mr. Handy for parking. There was a shared parking arrangement with the Travel Lodge. Also, workers from the road reconstruction project parked on the site. There is no longer a lease with Nissan, said Mr. Beldock, adding he has chosen not to post the land to prohibit parking. Burlington Foreign Car Parts has used the lot for the past 20 years, and the owner may voluntarily send in a nominal amount of money. Mr. Beldock said it is not his job to tell Burlington Foreign Car Parts not to park there.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the appeal hearing was closed. The DRB will take the matter under advisement.

 

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

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Bruce Beeken stated the request is for approval of the subdivision proposal on the properties of 167 and 197 Mt. Philo Road alone though drawings and a cover letter have been submitted proposing working with neighbors on water management on their properties. The application is for the Beeken/West property to manage ground water with a swale and detention system on-site. Screening for the driveway access and to address privacy issues is as noted on the drawing. Flow numbers to support water management on-site have been submitted. The drawings have been corrected with regard to landscaping and the planting schedule. Mr. Beeken asked the DRB to disregard the revamped swale on the Walbridge property and the catch basin and drain pipe system on the Jackson property as shown on the plans. These items are being eliminated from the site plan because the 1978 subdivision plans for John Street on file in the Shelburne Planning and Zoning Office show a bermed ditch running south to north so there is already a system to manage ground water for the houses in the area including the property at 167 & 197 Mt. Philo Road. Also, the piping system beneath the Jackson yard and the previously proposed pipe system are contrary to the approval granted in 1978. The portion of the plan relating to adjacent properties transfers the obligation to manage water from John Street onto the applicant (Beeken/West) and this is not appropriate, stated Mr. Beeken. If the DRB approves the plan as drawn the applicant will be in a situation with the neighbors of not being able to fulfill the terms of approval because of agreements needed (financial and maintenance terms) to install the water management system originally proposed by Beeken/West. There is already an approved system in plan, reiterated Bruce Beeken, and the plan shows an engineered system capable of handling water on-site. The DRB is asked to consider the application in that light.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/31/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jeremy Matosky, Trudell Consulting Engineers, stated storm water is still going onto neighboring properties. The original subdivision design is 30 years old. Reg Gignoux clarified the applicant feels confident the ground water problem has been solved on their own property. More water will not be going onto neighboring properties so there is not a negative impact from the development. Bruce Beeken added there are positive relations with the ‘downstream neighbors’ and work will continue with them to the extent possible. The DRB is being asked to exclude this activity from the subdivision approval as a condition because it is felt the approval will not be able to be executed. Mr. Beeken asked that the applicant be permitted to work with the neighbors (Walbridge and Jackson) separately from the application because the water problem has already been solved.

 

Trafton Crandall, engineer representing John Street Condominium Association, stated upon review the hydro-cad numbers are reasonable. Post-condition runoff will be less than pre-condition. Mr. Crandall suggested with regard to the detention ponds the plans are schematic in nature. The ponds have a minimum length and width at the elevations included in the hydro-cad calculations. The depth of the ponds should be 1.25’ (AP) and 1.5’ (2P). Also the storm water swales should be a minimum of nine inches deep to avoid clogging and filling. The pond outlet pipes from the AP pond should be directly connected to the swale on the downstream property. Mr. Crandall submitted his suggestions in writing to the DRB.

 

Debbie Mintz gave the DRB pictures showing ground water on lawns in the area after one day of rain following a week of sunshine. Pictures showing trees on the northern portion of the applicant’s property were also shown. Ms. Mintz stated the photographs of existing screening submitted by the applicant show the southern part of the property where the trees are growing well. Jeremy Matosky submitted suggested conditions of approval relative to screening and lighting. Bruce Beeken clarified the photographs submitted with the application show a panoramic view of the length of the property line from north to south between the Beeken and Walbridge properties, Beeken and Mintz/Roberts properties, Beeken and John Street Condominium Association properties, and Beeken and west of the John Street Condominium Association property. Screening and vegetation already in place is shown.

 

Christena Obregon, John Street Condominium Association, expressed a lack of confidence in the adequacy of the drainage system proposed by the applicant. The system calculations are based on past rainfall, but the current year is very wet. Ms. Obregon contended it is fraud on the DRB for the applicant to ask to ignore the plan to connect to the John Street system. If the applicant’s intention is to connect to the John Street system this should be stated. John Street neighbors do not feel the proposed drainage system is adequate to address all problems. The property deeds do not speak to maintaining the swale or ditch. Ms. Obregon also objected to the pond system which will be a breeding site for mosquitoes if the water is allowed to stand. Ms. Obregon felt the easement language in the deeds for the lots is insufficient and does not address maintenance of the ditches or swales. The legal documents are insufficient and lacking as well and there is still a problem with the hedges and trees. What is proposed does not go along the length of the back yard. Sufficient screening for privacy is wanted.  Clint West pointed out the height of the plants at the “Y” have been increased. Bruce Beeken stated there is maintenance language in the easement agreement. Bruce Beeken also explained the pipe on the Beeken property ends on the Beeken property and does not directly couple with the John Street swale. The deeds for the John Street condominiums do not reflect maintenance language, but prior deeds for the same lot do. The obligation runs with the land. Christena Obregon interjected the applicant has easement language on the Jackson lot, but their request is not to include this in the approval so the applicant is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Bruce Beeken stated an amendment would be expected by the DRB on that issue along with the requested items. Peter Gibbs summarized the testimony of the applicant and the applicant’s engineer is that the storm water utilities in the prior John Street subdivision approval are adequate to convey storm water discharged off the applicant’s property. Bruce Beeken confirmed this is his understanding of the Shelburne Public Works Director’s assessment of the situation. Dave Marshall clarified the intent of the design is the conditions will be no worse than existing conditions, and it is anticipated conditions will be better with the proposed system. Bernie Gagnon, Shelburne Public Works Director, confirmed his review of the calculations and drawings, and his conclusion that the flow generated based on the model will be less than existing conditions. Reg Gignoux mentioned there may be instances of momentary failure of systems working correctly. Dave Marshall stated all storm water systems are designed to handle specified rainfall events, and if that is exceed the system will overflow. The design proposed for the system is to handle intense rainfall events in a two to 24 hour period.

 

 There were no further comments.

 

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The DRB will discuss the application in deliberative session at a later time.

 

John Giebink and Charlie Brush with Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG) appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application. There was discussion of the zoning amendments that are not yet adopted. The DRB must review the submitted application under the existing regulations and the proposed regulations.  The applicant feels the site plan is consistent with the proposed regulations.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Giebink reviewed existing conditions (Shelburnewood mobile home park, 44 acres of land, 22 acres of developable land). The proposal meets the Town Plan which calls for dense pedestrian friendly affordable housing in the village center. The proposal replaces the mobile homes in Shelburnewood with frame houses on foundations. Concept plans of the houses were shown. The houses will be permanently affordable housing.  The village homes will be single family and range in size from 1,100 s.f. to 1,250 s.f. The structures will be located close to each other with parking behind the two-story houses. There will be a variety of color, shapes, and architecture. The main entrance to the development will be to the north of Trinity Church. Some land will be swapped with the church to increase the church parking area and eliminate the northern curb cut on Route 7. The Thomas house by the access will be removed. The existing access used presently will remain. There will be on-street parking, streetlights, sidewalks, a playground, benches and bus stops in the development. In the area by the Harrington House there will be a couple of new buildings on each side. Types of housing will include elder care units, elder housing, affordable housing, and market rate housing. With the larger buildings, the parking will be underground. The development will house a wide range of ages and socio-economic backgrounds. The Harrington House and barn will be converted to professional office space and/or work shop space for residents. The development will be served by municipal water and sewer. There will be rain gardens incorporated into the landscape features which will collect water from building roofs. Detention basins are on the perimeter of the development. Electric and telephone wires will be underground. Natural gas will serve the site. Twenty acres of land by the LaPlatte River will be deeded to the town for conservation. The location of a nature trail is to be determined through work with the town’s path committee. There will be public access to the trail which will tie into the town’s trail/sidewalk system. The development is not to be separate from the village, but rather an extension of the village, stressed Mr. Giebink.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/31/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

A woman in the audience commented positively on the vision by GMDG to incorporate affordable housing in the town. The proposed development looks beautiful and prevents urban sprawl. It was noted some of the village houses will be rental affordable housing and some will be rent-to-own. The townhouses will be for first time buyers. Fifty percent of the elder housing will be affordable.

 

Craig Smith, Trinity Church, stated the residents of Shelburnewood are happy with the proposed village houses. The plan as proposed proactively shows a way to add to the affordable housing in Shelburne and put the Town Plan in action.

 

Abigail Miller echoed the positive statements about the proposal, adding to keep the village character vibrancy needs to be maintained. Diversity of age groups and income levels will help meet that objective.

 

Eleanor Richardson, Shelburnewood resident, spoke in support of the site as a nice place to live, adding the plan is “a dream come true” for residents of Shelburnewood.

 

Monica Varsakepolos, Shelburnewood resident, stated the mixed development is rich. Affordable housing will be a part of the entire community. Residents will be able to walk to the village center. There will not be more traffic. Bus service is readily accessible. There are sidewalks. The proposed plan is fantastic, stated Ms. Varsakepolos, and the public needs to see it. There are not four story monstrous buildings being proposed. Shelburnewood residents have been going through this process since 2003 and it is offensive that people are making decisions when they have not even walked the property.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

A site visit was scheduled on 8/14/08 at 4:30 p.m. (meet at the Trinity Church parking lot).  Rain date for the site visit is 8/20/08.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and deliberative session convened at 9:10 p.m.

 

 TOWN OF SHELBURNE

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Kathy Soulia Kelly, Judith and Stephen Selin, Susan McLellan, Peg Rosenau, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Garden Shed, 0 McCabe Circle, Shelburne Meadows Association (DR08-16)

·        Design Review, Site Plan, and Conditional Use, Renovations, Sign, and Change of Use, 61 Harbor Road, Selin (DR08-15/SP07-05R1/CU07-09R1)

·        Design Review, Site Plan, and Conditional Use, Renovations & Serving Window for Soft Serve Ice Cream, 5252 Shelburne Road, Spillane (DR08-17/SP97-09R1/CU97-09R1)

Pending the arrival of Chairman Gignoux, the meeting was called to order by Peter Gibbs at 7:10 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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

 

Peg Rosenau appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ms. Rosenau explained the shed is for the community garden. Common tools (weedwacker and mower) will be stored in the custom built 8’x 8’ shed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/20/08. John Adams said the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the shed application.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Judith and Stephen Selin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin explained proposed amendments to the previous design approval as follows:

·        Change in the parking configuration to conform to the state’s demands (the parking is on land leased from the state). Agreement on leasing land to the west of the building is close to being settled. Traffic circulation is ingress from Harbor Road and egress through a common exit (for use by 63 Harbor Road as well) between the four parking spaces for 61 Harbor Road and two parking spaces for 63 Harbor Road.  The state granted some additional space for snow storage. There will be a fence the height of a guardrail to separate the entrance to the train station parking lot and the driveway/parking for 61 Harbor Road (and 63 Harbor Road).

·        Change of use from office with an accessory apartment to office and a small retail space on the lower east side of the building (the retail space may be associated with the architectural office use with the sale of stained glass made by the Selins). In order to keep the parking arrangement the square footage of the building had to be decreased so the building will actually be separated from the shared common wall at 63 Harbor Road. The shared common wall is also the property line. A 10’ wide courtyard area will be created between the two structures (61 Harbor Road and 63 Harbor Road). It is easier to get financing with the building separated and the space will allow natural light on the southern side of 61 Harbor Road.  A fire rated wall (two hour) will be constructed. Existing trim and siding will be matched.

·        The retail shop has a sign approved by the Design Review Committee. The sign will be smaller than the sign on the main building and located to the left of the main sign. There will be a loading area through the back alley.

 

Peter Gibbs confirmed there is a small parcel of land along Harbor Road that goes with the property at 63 Harbor Road.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked if there will be signs to indicate traffic flow. Mr. Selin felt the angled parking spaces will prevent people from backing out of the ingress. Reg Gignoux added the driveway/parking for 61 & 63 Harbor Road will be gravel while the train station parking lot is paved so there is a textural difference to alert people. Ms. Kraushaar mentioned building the base of the drive to standard to support a fire truck and not paving the top. Mr. Selin said this was considered, but it is very expensive. The driveway as proposed can be plowed.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 8/20/08. Dick Elkins observed the zoning regulations only allow one allowable use in a residential unit so there is question how two uses in a residence can be approved. The property is small and does not have enough square footage for the uses per the regulations. John Adams clarified the regulations do not address the building footprint getting smaller and having two allowable uses. The DRB needs to decide whether to consider intensity of use. Peter Gibbs stated under the current regulations an allowable use plus a residential use is allowed. The applicant is proposing to switch the residential use for a retail use. Dick Elkins pointed out 10,000 s.f. is required for each use per the regulations.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Kathy Soulia Kelly, 63 Harbor Road, stated her attorney feels there may be issues impacting the property. A letter from Kathy Soulia Kelly’s attorney was given to the DRB for review. In summary the letter says the property deeds need to be respected. The property lines are incorrectly portrayed on the drawings by Selin. It also needs to be clarified who is responsible for what. Mr. Selin said the deed issues are being worked out. A survey is expensive (nearly $7,000) and it involves the state and railroad deeds established over a hundred years ago. Mr. Selin said his attorney advised the deed issues are not a part of the approval because the work is within the footprint. The drawing showing the north end of 63 Harbor Road spells out what will be done to make the building whole when the structure is separated, including having the roof edge match, insulating the new wall, and finishing the siding and trim. Reg Gignoux asked Kathy Soulia Kelly if she approves of the plans provided the lines are in the correct places. Kathy Soulia Kelly confirmed this.  Stephen Selin noted according to the state Fire Marshall a 20’ separation between buildings is better, but the property owner at 63 Harbor Road cannot be asked to give up 10’ of the building so a two hour fire wall is being substituted for the 10’ of space (i.e. there will be the fire wall and a 10’ courtyard area).

 

Sue McLellan, resident, expressed concern about parking and traffic associated with a professional office and retail use at the site. Ms. McLellan mentioned a traffic study done several years ago in conjunction with a request to lower the speed limit. The corner on Harbor Road is bad. There have been many near accidents. Regarding the parking, other development in the village has been given permission to use the train station parking lot (for overflow parking). Reg Gignoux stated suggesting use of the public parking lot is being done informally. The property at 61 & 63 Harbor Road did not have any parking except along the sidewalk in front of the building which the town would discourage. The traffic circulation as currently proposed is better than the original application.  Dick Elkins agreed the DRB needs to be aware of continuing to recommend the public parking area for overflow parking use. There was further discussion of the use of the train station parking lot. It was noted presently the lot is only minimally used. Kathy Soulia Kelly testified she has never witnessed the lot being full. Staff from area businesses and restaurants park in the lot to free up spaces for patrons by the establishments. A bigger issue is cars driving at a high rate of speed on a regular basis through the lot.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

There was discussion of the number of uses allowed per the regulations. The regulations indicate one allowable use and one residential use. Any additional residential use requires an additional 2,500 s.f. of space. Dick Elkins expressed concern about the ramifications of granting approval for two uses in a residence. Stephen Selin pointed out the building with Village Wine and Coffee has many uses. There are several locations in the village with many uses on-site. The building at 61 Harbor Road was previously used by a pottery studio and an antique shop so the building has a history of two uses in it.

 

 

John Adams reported the applicant requests the application be continued.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.