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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Joanne Jarrett, Bev Renick, Roger Bogue, Terry Kennaugh, Joyce Errecart, Ron Bushnell, Julie Kennaugh, Paul Bakeman, Sandra Lewis, Randy Longe, James Kaiser, Sharon Barton, John Giebink, Vicki Carleton, Charlie Brush, Phil Carleton, Ray Richardson, Eleanor Richardson, Joan Lenes, Peter Zuk, Krister Adams, Gail Albert, David Webster, Gwen Webster, Rosalyn Graham, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Fencing, 913 Falls Road, Sandra Lewis (DR08-18)

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

·        Conditional Use Application, Seawall, 4327 Harbor Road, Tony Handy (CU08-11)

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Three Lots, 75 Northside Drive, James Bahrenburg (SUB08-04)

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan/Design Review, Mixed Use PUD, 5059 Shelburne Road & 82 Shelburnewood Drive, Shelburnewood, LLC/Dyer and Thomas (SUB08-03/DR08-13)

Chairman Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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

 

Sandra Lewis and Randy Longe appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Longe explained the location of new fencing to be installed on the Lewis property at 913 Falls Road. The fence will be behind the trees. Sandra Lewis owns property beyond the fence. There will be chain link fence with a six foot gate and privacy fence without the lattice top as recommended by the Design Review Committee. Fence posts will be in concrete.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/3/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Adams reported the applicant requested the application be continued to September 17, 2008.

 

 

Ron Bushnell with S.D. Ireland appeared on behalf of the application. Kay Kraushaar recused herself from review of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ron Bushnell stated the wall will be the color of natural stone. Colored concrete can be used, but the choice of color is subjective (i.e. one person’s preference may not be another person’s preference). There is an existing seawall to the south that is concrete with a similar boulder wall and the proposed seawall will match. An engineer has reviewed the plan. The wall will be on the broad lake side just before Shelburne Ship Yard. The wall is needed because there are vertical cliffs of soft, loose shale (30’ high in one place) that is periodically crumbling into the lake. Waves are undermining the area. Mr. Bushnell said he has photographs over the last five years showing where trees were at one time, but are now gone (fallen into the lake) due to erosion. The seawall will be the same height as the wall on the adjoining property to the south. The wall will be lower to the north and follow the topography of the land. There is rip-rap where the lake comes up to the side of the road.  Mr. Bushnell said there is erosion along the entire shoreline. Mr. Handy’s camp is about 80’ from where the top of the bank is today. The driveway is on the south side of the lot going down by the lake to within 15’ of where the shore is eroded. The wall is designed to not attach to the adjoining wall so the neighboring property is not encumbered. The wall will go to the property line. Some of the neighbor’s wall is actually on Mr. Handy’s property. Geo-grid material will be used behind the block wall for stabilization. The location of the wall will be determined by where solid ground is found. Mr. Handy is trying to protect the remaining trees. If present weather conditions hold then work will begin. It would be ideal to have the lake level at 97’.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if other techniques to stop erosion were investigated as well as a different treatment on the face if necessary once the toe is protected. Ron Bushnell stated alternative means and what is affordable were discussed. There is hard ledge on the bottom and the wall needs to be pinned to the hard ledge. High water forces going out a long way into the lake to find the hard ledge unless a concrete wall is poured. Mr. Gibbs noted the regulations encourage not having an exposed concrete face and matching the natural environment. Mr. Bushnell explained form liners on the inside of the forms will be used to allow for a textured finish. This is subjective in that some people like the look and others do not. Mr. Bushnell said he is open to suggestions. There is an enormous number of liners and patterns to consider. Shale is there now, and shale has many diagonal lines in it. This pattern could be replicated or darker grey concrete could be used if the DRB desires. Reg Gignoux mentioned the DRB is looking for the seawall to be disguised to look more natural as much as possible.

 

Mark Sammut asked about permits. Ron Bushnell stated the Army Corps. of Engineers does not require a permit for the wall nor does the Agency of Natural Resources.  Mr. Sammut asked about an existing permit for the rip-rap. John Adams stated in the previous zoning regulations there were no provisions for seawalls. Past practice by the town was to provide an excavation and fill permit. The applicant did secure such a permit for the rip-rap along the shoreline.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/3/08. Reg Gignoux mentioned doing a site visit. Dick Elkins stated the applicant needs to provide a sketch plan showing the shore line, existing house/camp, the contours - basically what is existing on the site. Photographs would be helpful.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Terry Kennaugh, Harbor Road, showed photographs of the lake at the current level and at the level when the applicant’s project first came before the town. The proposed seawall will go to the 106’ mark which is six feet above the high lake level of 100’, explained Mr. Kennaugh, adding with a water level of 95’ there will be another five feet of exposed surface. The proposed seawall is flat and angled so waves from storms from the north or northwest will bounce off the wall and impact the beach. Trying to protect one section of the shoreline is a detriment to another section. Aesthetically the proposed wall does not look good. Mr. Kennaugh cited another seawall project on the lake (Essex) where space was provided for greenery to cover the wall. Mr. Kennaugh stated it is not known how far out into the lake the wall will go. There is question whether the property owner is trying to recapture land that has been lost to the lake over the past 100 years. Ron Bushnell pointed out the seawall will follow the contours of the land as closely as possible. Room is needed for the geo-grid material to hold the blocks without removing the existing shale and trees. Mr. Handy is not regaining any property. The seawall has to be built as proposed so it will stay in place.

 

Paul Bakeman, 4226 Harbor Road, expressed concern about the visual impact on the lake side and the impact on Harborwood Shores beach. The proposed seawall is too high at 106’ with 100’ water level, stated Mr. Bakeman, suggesting the wall be reduced to 103’ in height so it does not show as much. The boulder wall is unacceptable relative to the proposed zoning regulations. Rip-rap facing is better in appearance and the stone should match the dark blue-grey color that is there. Peter Gibbs confirmed the intent of the zoning regulations is that the minimum protection be designed to solve the issue with an emphasis on bio-technical solutions. Ron Bushnell said he will ask the engineer to explore other avenues. A shorter retaining wall could be built, but the wave height needs to be considered especially if there is high water at the 100’ mark with three foot waves. If the block wall is replaced by rip-rap on the top layer then backfilling is not possible so more retaining wall farther out into the lake will be needed for a foundation.

 

Rosalyn Graham, resident, suggested the applicant’s engineer and the DRB view what was done at Shelburne Farms last winter to control erosion by the gardens near the inn. The work was done in winter to access the shore from the ice. The result is very attractive and the bank is higher than what the applicant is dealing with.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kay Kraushaar returned to the DRB.

 

Jim Bahrenburg appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bahrenburg said he is purchasing Lot #9 (eight acres) in Shelburne Meadows Business Park from Pizzagalli Properties. The lot will be subdivided into three residential lots, the first lot (lot 1) will be one acre, the second lot (lot 2) will be .75 acre, and the third lot (lot 3) will be approximately six acres. Access to lots 1 & 2 will be from Northside Drive. Access to lot 3 is by an existing driveway. Mr. Bahrenburg said he plans to sell lots 1 & 2 and build a house for himself on lot 3. The seasonal brook and required setbacks will define the location of the building envelopes on the lots.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/3/08. John Adams suggested the applicant research when the existing drive was built. Permits with the town cannot be located. Also, lot 3 could be impacted by Act 250 requirements. Mr. Adams suggested the state wetlands office be contacted due to wetlands on the property.  Reg Gignoux added the applicant should provide information on existing and proposed setbacks from the stream and the front yard to determine the areas for building envelopes.  Mr. Bahrenburg said he will show the building envelopes on the plan. It was noted there is no intention to cross the stream on lots 1 & 2. Mr. Bahrenburg said he did contact the wetlands office and the pond is the extent of wetlands for what is being proposed.

 

Jim Washburn asked if the area was always zoned residential. Mr. Bahrenburg stated the area was just rezoned from commercial to residential. Pizzagalli is in support of the proposed development and has signed a landowner authorization.

 

Dick Elkins stated drawings to scale are needed to show the property lines, setbacks, wetlands, and the stream.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Joanne Jarrett, Pinehurst Drive, asked about the impact of the houses on her property. Mr. Bahrenburg assured the houses will not be visible. Mr. Bahrenburg will provide Ms. Jarrett with a sketch showing the proposed house locations.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

John Giebink with Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG) appeared on behalf of the application. Dick Elkins recused himself from review of the application. Reg Gignoux noted the DRB did conduct a site visit.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

John Giebink recalled an overview of the Shelburnewood proposal was given to the DRB in August and a site walk with the DRB was held a week later. Mr. Giebink reviewed the topography of the parcel, noting the flat peninsula of land to the moderately steep slopes that are heavily vegetated down to the wetlands area and the LaPlatte River. The development will take place on the flat plateau area. The steep slopes and banks of the river will be protected. Twenty acres (43% of the parcel) will be deeded to Lake Champlain Land Trust or the town or even to a third or fourth entity to preserve the land for public use. There will be a nature trail with the path determined by the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee. The plateau area slopes to the east away from Route 7 and is surrounded by vegetated slopes and the river. Entry to the proposed development will be by the existing Thomas house to the north of Trinity Church. There is an option on the Thomas house. VTrans is reviewing the development plans relative to a previously conducted traffic study of the area and the potential for a traffic signal at the intersection of the access road with Route 7. The ingress/egress for the church parking lot will be removed on the north side. The church will have a much safer access from the entry drive to the development.  Mr. Giebink stressed Shelburnewood is an extension of village, not a gated, separate development. With the proposal the village homes portion of the neighborhood will be built first to replace the existing mobile homes in the mobile home park. A funding program will be in place to ensure the housing will be affordable. The village homes will be stick built, five star energy efficient, and perpetually affordable. The Harrington House area will be the second portion of the neighborhood that is built followed by affordable and market townhouses in four locations on the site similar to the townhouses by the Shelburne Inn approved for the Redstone Group. There will also be a condominium building for seniors. These units will be one level flats with an elevator in the building and underground parking. There will be three buildings in the center of the property for elderly supportive service housing (ESSH) and elder care or assisted living units. Photographs of existing houses and the streetscape in Shelburne were shown. Mr. Giebink further described the compact village homes. The “Harrington Village” portion of the development will feature the Harrington House prominently as seen from Route 7. The existing barn and ell will remain. The driveway will be on the north side. An historic preservationist (Liz Pritcher) has been hired to assist with the renovation and preservation of the house. Two additional house structures, perhaps duplexes, will be built to the south of the Harrington House. The houses will be similar vernacular to the Harrington House and will front Route 7 with two flats inside. There will likely be a residential townhouse in the ell in back.  Mr. Giebink described types of homes that will be seen traveling down the entry road. There will be an open green in the middle of the village home section with playground equipment, park benches, and picnic tables.

 

John Giebink referred to the issue of ‘units’. It was noted the DRB previously received information on ESSH and the need for a certain number of units and space in a building to make the development affordable and to be able to deliver services to area residents. Having a VNA satellite office in the building to serve area senior citizens is very practical and welcomed.  The DRB received additional information on elder housing and services as well as affordable housing in Vermont. There is a significant difference between a single family house unit and an elder housing living unit, stressed Mr. Giebink.

 

Regarding traffic, Mr. Giebink mentioned their facility in NH which with ESSH and assisted living units. The facility does not generate traffic or create demand on schools or impact on town services due to the type of resident. An apartment complex by comparison produces eight times the morning trips than ESSH units. Single family developments create 12 times the morning trips than ESSH units. A survey was done of 850 incoming residents in ESSH units in NY, NH, and Vermont and it was found that 60% of the individuals are moving out of affordable housing in the local area (the housing meets the affordable housing guidelines) so building the ESSH units will free up that type of housing in the town.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/3/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Vicki Carleton, Shelburnewood resident, spoke in support of the proposal as a great opportunity for so many. The developer is offering affordable housing to the town and the residents of the mobile home park. As well the town is gaining open space and elder housing. The developer is allowing the mobile home owners to decide on the number of bedrooms and the interior amenities they want in their new village home. Ms. Carleton mentioned residents have been dealing with the stress of possibly losing their existing homes for the past four years. Victims of Katrina in New Orleans received more expedient help, stated Ms. Carleton, questioning what the town is going to do to help the residents stay in their homes. Reg Gignoux assured the DRB is moving as fast as possible with the application which must be reviewed under the existing and revised regulations. The DRB cannot make a decision until the Selectboard adopts the revised zoning regulations. The Selectboard has not yet completed review of the revisions.  The process is ongoing. The DRB understands timing is critical. Everyone is hoping the outcome will be good for the majority. Joan Lenes asked if there have been conversations with the developer regarding a timeframe or deadline. John Giebink noted Craig Smith (Trinity Church) at a recent Selectboard meeting urged the Selectboard to get the zoning bylaws adopted by fall because the finite window on the project funding is at risk. The project is being presented in an attempt to move the process along wherever possible. It will take a minimum of nine months to a year for all the paperwork associated with the project to be reviewed through the local and state processes then the options begin to run out. This information has been communicated by letter to the Selectboard. Reg Gignoux stressed all applicable boards, commissions, and committees in the town will work expediently.

 

Gwen Webster, Shelburne resident, questioned the change in the number of units from 293 units to 380 units presently. John Giebink pointed out ESSH and assisted living units are different from a single family house unit. The proposal presents a variety of housing types, sizes, economics, and affordability that fits the location. The village homes portion of the development will remain affordable by deed covenants or a cooperative ownership arrangement. There are affordable housing cooperatives across the country. Ms. Webster stated the DRB should know the percentage of increase in the size of the village itself due to the proposal in terms of residential units and population before making a final decision. Ms. Webster mentioned the additional buildings to be constructed by the Harrington House, questioning why the area is not simply left as green space. Charlie Brush said GMDG is reacting to comments from the Shelburne Design Review Committee. Anyone can attend Design Review Committee meetings and give comment. Ms. Webster was urged to attend the meeting. Mr. Brush reiterated an historic consultant has been hired to work on the historic restoration of the Harrington House, ell, and barn. The look of buildings in the village will be respected in terms of corner boards and fascia on the new buildings per the comments of the Design Review Committee.

 

Peter Zuk, Shelburne, asked what will happen to the 25 families living in the Shelburne mobile home park. Mr. Zuk observed there are many boards involved in the decision process (lots of bureaucracy) and the priority should be people first. Mr. Zuk mentioned several articles he authored on that perspective and recalled his experience at Brandon Training School working with developmentally disabled individuals. Mr. Zuk referred to a booklet describing the UVM program on university affiliated facilities and stressed if money is the issue the program may be an option. The town simply needs to ask.  Reg Gignoux confirmed there are different boards involved in decisions on the proposal and the proposal is clear as to what will be available to the residents of Shelburnewood. At this point much is being done on speculation, acknowledged Mr. Gignoux, but theoretically the ending will be happy for all.

 

Krister Adams with Housing Foundation, Inc. (HFI) said HFI is a partner with GMDG and has been working with the Shelburnewood residents for the past four years. HFI is very excited about the concept of smart growth in the community especially since the residences of Shelburnewood will be preserved. Jim Washburn asked if the affordable housing will be the first built and where the Shelburnewood residents will live in the interim. John Giebink stated the entrance by the Thomas house and infrastructure work will be done first and then construction of the village homes as the first phase followed by development of the Harrington House area. When the certificates of occupancy are issued for the village homes the residents of the mobile home park will move into the houses and the mobile homes will be removed. Then work will continue on the other portions of the development (townhouses and ESSH).

 

Sharon Barton, Shelburnewood, pointed out the proposal being in one area is not sprawl and does not cause loss of the countryside.

 

Jim Washburn asked about 20,000 s.f. of commercial space shown on the plans. John Giebink said the note is a space holder. It is not certain how much commercial space will be designated. The Harrington House with two floors and an ell lends itself to commercial office space use.  There are existing houses along Route 7 that were residential and are now commercial spaces.

 

Joan Lenes, Shelburne, asked about the timeframe from ground breaking to completion. John Giebink said the timeframe is not known at this time. The upfront mix of housing will be predominantly affordable housing because the funding sources are there and the housing is not subject to market forces. The project could span nine to 12 years. Smart Growth Coalition of Vermont is scoring the proposal very high because it is in a downtown village area and does not promote sprawl – two key elements of the smart growth concept.

 

Eleanor Richardson, Shelburnewood resident for over 14 years, spoke of the derogatory attitude some people have toward people living in mobile homes which makes some people in Shelburnewood feel they are a canker on the town. The feeling is hurtful to self esteem. The residents are excited about the beautiful and convenient area in the village where they live and feel the proposed village homes are an absolute dream. Ms. Richardson acknowledged some townspeople are against the village homes, saying they will be small, matchbox houses. The houses will be small and attractive, and they will be an asset to the town as will the entire property (wetlands, wildlife area, walking paths).  Reg Gignoux affirmed the proposal is appealing because townspeople will be able to enjoy the area and the residents of Shelburnewood will feel more a part of the community. Peter Gibbs clarified questions about the project is not negative talk. The responsibility of the DRB is to understand exactly what is proposed and the impacts on a town-wide basis so the town can be prepared to handle the impacts.  Vicki Carleton (Shelburnewood resident) interjected the residents of Shelburnewood have worked together and did what had to be done to stay in the community. There has been talk of the need for a ladder truck due to some of the buildings in the development and the residents of Shelburnewood will be a part of what needs to be done on that front as well.

 

Peter Gibbs asked for a breakdown of acreage, wetlands, slopes, net developable land, and the 30’ perimeter buffer. Mr. Giebink provided the requested information. A very small density bonus is being requested. Mr. Gibbs asked if for the density bonus some units have been pushed on the 15% slopes. Mr. Giebink said there are no units close or on the 15% slope. The buildings are on the flat area.  Mr. Gibbs asked if the traffic signal at the entry intersection with Route 7 is certain. Mr. Giebink stated VTrans is looking at the project and the traffic study done a year and a half ago. A traffic light and perhaps a turn lane will likely be needed. There was discussion of coordinating the traffic light with the work at the Harbor Road intersection. Gwen Webster stressed the lights should be synchronized so people with houses on Route 7 will be able to get out of their driveways.  Peter Gibbs mentioned potential impact on town services to support the elder care and ESSH units (emergency services may have to be increased in membership and equipment). There could also be an impact on the capital budget.  John Giebink stated the taxes paid by the facilities can be used to pay for the additional capability needed by emergency services since the housing will have little impact on roads and schools.

 

Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, said the committee is happy to participate in trail planning. There is concern about units being close to the edge of the slopes and that there be a buffer to the river. Pulling some units back slightly or reducing the number in the back area so there could be more of a perimeter border is suggested.

 

Jim Washburn asked if any of the existing trees will remain in the developable area. Charlie Brush confirmed they are trying to locate significant trees on the site to preserve.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Dick Elkins returned to the DRB.

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Terry Kennaugh, Ron Bushnell, Paul Bakeman, Kevin Spillane, Chuck Dunham, Donal Curley, Mark DiPaulo, James Bahrenburg, David Webster, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Exterior Improvements/Repairs, 5955 Shelburne Road, Marilene Luxton-Jones (DR08-19)

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

·        Conditional Use Application, Seawall, 4327 Harbor Road, Tony Handy (CU08-11)

·        Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, Three Lots, 75 Northside Drive, James Bahrenburg (SUB08-04)

Chairman Reg Gignoux called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

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

 

No one appeared on behalf of the application. Staff noted the Design Review Committee recommended approval with the suggestions noted in the Staff Report, dated 9/17/08. There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kevin Spillane and Chuck Dunham appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Kevin Spillane explained the proposal to update the exterior of the existing building at 5252 Shelburne Road and replace the paneling with similar paneling. A soft serve ice cream window will be added on the south side of the building. The front sidewalk by the building (not the sidewalk along Route7) will be updated to have handicap access. There will be a walk-in cooler on the back side of the building.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/17/08. John Adams noted the need for an accessible (handicap) parking space to be shown on the plans as well as photometrics indicating three foot-candles at ground level. The applicant will provide the information. There was further discussion of site lighting. Reg Gignoux noted the lighting should be reviewed to ensure the town’s current and proposed lighting regulations are met. Kevin Spillane said on the pump island there is a florescent tube light, one recessed downcast light by the “self” sign, and internal illumination of the pumps. There is recessed lighting against the building, a light over the telephone, a light on the south side of the east entrance and one on the south entrance. Essentially at each entry point to the station there is a light.  The applicant will ensure the lighting meets the town’s regulations.  Mark Sammut suggested a photometric plan for all the site lighting be submitted.

 

Kay Kraushaar asked about the unit in the back of the building encroaching on the setback. Mark Sammut asked if the footprint is increasing due to the addition of the cooler. Kevin Spillane said the proposal is within the existing footprint of the concrete pad in the back. There is a chain link fence with green webbing around the back of the site. Kay Kraushaar asked if the ice cream window is recessed. Kevin Spillane said the windows are flush with the exterior wall.

 

Dick Elkins asked if the restrooms are being moved. Mr. Spillane stated the restrooms are in the same location, but access will now be from inside the building. Mr. Elkins asked about parking on the south side of the site. Mr. Spillane said employees will park there a well as cars in for service. Chuck Dunham stated there is a raised sidewalk to separate the parking and the building. The parking is valet and controlled by the property owner. Dick Elkins suggested a walkway along the building be added rather than having people cross the parking lot to get to the building. The concern is children in the area of the gas pumps. Kevin Spillane suggested in the summer months cars can be parked away from the building to encourage people to walk along the building and enter in the back on the south side of the building. Reg Gignoux concurred it is better to have foot traffic away from automobiles. Chairman Gignoux asked about the parking spaces in front of the two garage bays. Mr. Spillane stated the parking is controlled. People use the spaces for a quick stop to the convenience store. Dick Elkins suggested the two parking spaces not be striped as there is enough parking on the site without the spaces.  Mr. Elkins also suggested a bike rack be placed in the back of the building.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Ron Bushnell with S.D. Ireland appeared on behalf of the application. Kay Kraushaar recused herself from review of the application. Reg Gignoux noted a site visit was conducted and several DRB members did a visual inspection from the lake. Other seawalls in the area including the one at Shelburne Farms were observed.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ron Bushnell stated the color of stone will be used on the wall. There will be rip-rap at the base of the concrete wall. The elevation of the wall has been changed. The top of the block wall has been lowered. There will be a shelf on the top of the concrete wall with areas for plantings to break up the symmetry of the wall. The block wall will be stained a reddish-brown to match the soil color. The lower concrete wall will be stained dark grey with white patterning to match the existing shale. The structure will not bulge out into the lake as does the seawall at Shelburne Farms.

 

Reg Gignoux commented erosion comes form the lake and the land. Mr. Gignoux felt more could be done to mitigate erosion from the applicant’s land. Mr. Gignoux did not support matching the facing on the proposed seawall to the existing seawall to the south because the result will be a large blank wall. There are other solutions to consider. It appears the top of the wall is higher, continued Mr. Gignoux, and having the plantings on top may not be the solution. Ron Bushnell said the height of the wall is less than the original proposal. The concrete wall matches the existing wall to the south. Reg Gignoux stated there are biotechnical solutions to consider. Mr. Gignoux also mentioned the lack of engineering drawings. Ron Bushnell said according to his engineer lowering the block wall creates less load. There is rip-rap to elevation 100’ in front. The elevation of the lake shown in the hand drawing is 98’.  Mr. Bushnell showed on the hand drawing the changes (reduction) in the wall and amended the drawing to show where the wall will be located relative to the shoreline.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/11/08. It was noted Peter Gibbs submitted his comments via email. The comments will be made available to the applicant.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Terry Kennaugh, Harbor Road, expressed concern about the end of the wall, observing it appears there is still seawall on the north end angled toward the beach area to the north. Mr. Kennaugh suggested there be rip-rap on one end and no wall on the north end. Ron Bushnell stated up to the 100’ elevation there will be rip-rap. The wall on the north end can be eliminated. Mr. Kennaugh asked about access. Mr. Bushnell stated the driveway will be tight to the top of the bank. The wall will be as tight to the bank as possible. Mr. Kennaugh pointed out the most shale is found at the north end. Freezing/thawing and wave action causes problems. The waves hit the seawall and the water splash blows into the air and onto the shale rock. Ron Bushnell said installing the concrete wall at an angle was considered, but this causes the wall to be farther out into the lake. Terry Kennaugh noted the wall to the south is angled to disperse water. Mr. Kennaugh asked about going down to the 93’ level. Ron Bushnell stated on the south end where there is existing wall there are two coves that have been seriously scoured. Hard ledge must be found to pin the wall which will require digging down to find the ledge. Fill will be done under the overhang to avoid disturbing the existing trees. Mr. Kennaugh expressed concern about the trees growing tall and being toppled by wind and falling into the lake, suggesting permission should be sought to remove trees when necessary. Mr. Bushnell assured the existing trees are small and can be preserved with stabilization of the soil.

 

Donal Curley, Harborwood Shores Association, noted according to the overlay district the directive is to preserve views from the lake and other vantage points, but the proposed 400’ structure which will be 23’ above the 98’ water mark does not achieve this. Regarding visually compatible materials, concrete is not like the existing shoreline topography and cement block is not a naturally occurring material. The wall to the south is not visually appealing or aesthetic. Mr. Curley urged using alternate material like that used at Shelburne Farms which blends well with the surroundings making it difficult to locate the wall relative to the shoreline. Mr. Curley requested the applicant put an offset line or flag to delineate the wall so the actual location can be seen. Biotechnical erosion control techniques should be further discussed and an engineer should present a solution. There is not a written statement regarding the unique character of the site that makes a seawall the best solution. The property is not so unique that a 400’ wall with a maximum height of 23’ is necessary.  Mr. Curley urged more thorough review of the situation so the best possible solution is found visually because there may be additional applications for seawalls in the future.

 

Reg Gignoux concurred an alternative engineering solution should be presented. The location of the current driveway may be adding to the erosion problem, observed Mr. Gignoux, and the proximity of the septic system to the lake is not known. More information on the entire site is needed. Dick Elkins suggested a survey of the entire property should be submitted. Ron Bushnell stated the water level has been high which did not allow for measurements and a survey to be done. John Adams noted a survey of the lot was not found in the town’s file. Mr. Bushnell said he has an aerial photograph of the property taken in winter and the lot lines are overlaid on the picture. Dimensions are not included. Mr. Bushnell offered to create a scale that is approximate of the property lines and show the approximate location of the seawall on the photograph.  Mark Sammut added a couple sections of the wall in 50’ to 75’ intervals should also be shown as well as the existing toe of the slope. There is opportunity to lower the modular block wall and cut back the slope along the top, shape the area and do plantings (i.e. cut down on the height and mass of the wall). The overburden on the shale should be protected because that area will erode faster than the shale below. Dick Elkins spoke in support of something more attractive than blocks at the top of the wall. Ron Bushnell said according to his engineer, John Higgins, with a biotechnical application the wall would have to be set farther out in the lake and it is not certain it would stay there with the exposure of the site. There was further discussion of modifying the size of the wall. Mr. Bushnell will paint markings where the wall will be located for the neighbors to see. A sample of the material for the wall will be provided.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Kay Kraushaar returned to the DRB.

 

Jim Bahrenburg appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Bahrenburg provided copies of the survey drawing to the DRB. There are permits to cross the seasonal stream, stated Mr. Bahrenburg. When the property was part of the Farrell Farm before being purchased by Pizzagalli there was a road with a culvert going by the pond. In 1988 the state approved the stream relocation, a new culvert, and driveway. Mr. Bahrenburg submitted the land use permit and amendment to the 1986 survey, noting both Pizzagalli and Hamlin Engineering believe local approval was not required in 1988 (only state approval). Access to the proposed new lots will be from Northside Drive. Lot size will be .75 acres. The third lot (where Mr. Bahrenburg will build his house) will be approximately seven acres in size. Building envelopes are shown on the site plan.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/11/08. There was discussion of conducting a site visit. DRB members will do this on their own.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m.