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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Terry Kennaugh, Paul Bakeman, Gwen Webster, J.Kaisur, John Giebink, Sharon Barton, Ed Vizvarie, Victoria Carleton, Cheryl Roberts, Richard Williams, Joan Lenes, John & Amy Saar, Don Holly, Dona Gurley, Stephen Selin, Rosalyn Graham, Julie Kennaugh, Alice & Christophe Lissarrague, Oda Hubbard, Chris Von Trapp, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

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

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

·        Conditional Use Application, Modification to Structure, 3735 Harbor Road, John and Amy Saar (CU08-12)

·        Subdivision Final Plan Review, Six Lots, 539 Irish Hill Road, Christophe and Alice Lissarrague (SUB92-7R1)

Chairman 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.

 

John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group, appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mr. Giebink noted total acreage for the project is 44.19 acres. Maps were shown of the current development plans, current building and development scheme on the property, overlay of wetlands (7.46 acres), areas with over 15% slope, net developable land (26.79 acres), proposed conservation land (19.9 acres or 45% of the entire property), and the 30’ setback on the property perimeter. The site plan of the developable area showing the perimeter of the property and the 30’ setback was reviewed. The landscape plan is not yet complete. Changes have been made to the site plan per meetings with the Design Review Committee. A data sheet on acreage, housing types and density was given to the Board. The village homes in the development will be single family houses replacing the mobile home park.  There will be 85 Elder Care units (assisted living) and 150 units of ESSH housing in two buildings connected to each other. There will be 28 units of elder housing and 43 small single family homes, four buildings of duplex housing, and a multi-family building with units for rent and sale.  There will be both affordable and market value housing. The affordable housing will be affordable for the long term and in perpetuity via legal mechanisms in place. The chart showing density is based on the proposed zoning bylaw, continued Mr. Giebink, plus a density bonus of 10% in terms of the total project. Special notes include the dense development with larger buildings is needed to have the ability to offer affordable housing. Of the 291 units proposed, 110 units or 30% will be affordable. Of the 113 family work force housing units, 60 will be affordable (53%). Regarding population increase, ESSH is calculated on 1.1 resident per unit. Single family housing is calculated on three people per unit. Total population anticipated from the proposal is 638 people with a cross-section of young, work force, middle age, and elderly people. Of the 638 residents it is expected 339 will be in the family work force category and 299 will be in the elderly category. Demographics for Vermont per US Census data indicate within 20 years Vermont will be the seventh oldest state in the country. The average age in the state is 44 years. Based on a 10 year build-out, there would be 64 additional residents per year.  The majority of the affordable housing (75%) will be in the first phase. The density is needed to supply the amount of affordable housing. Building height is needed for the assisted living and ESSH units.

 

The village homes will be small, single family, New England style houses with front porches and parking in back, stated Mr. Giebink. Architecture will be varied. The area will be pedestrian friendly with sidewalks and public transportation service on the site. Streets will be 14’ wide with one-way circulation. There will be on-street parallel parking for visitors. The Harrington House will remain a prominent feature on Shelburne Road with driveway access from Route 7. There will be two buildings (ell and barn) to the north of the Harrington House similar to the construction on Shelburne Road now. A community park will be created with a gazebo, swing set, park benches. A number of units will front the park. Access and parking will be behind so cars are not visible from Shelburne Road or from inside the development. Liz Pritcher, historic advisor, has been secured to handle the historic preservation of the Harrington House, ell and barn.  The house and barn will be a single residence. The ell will have two residences. To the south will be a new building like those on Shelburne Road (front of the building facing the road with an ell in back). Review of the townhouse Building A is still occurring with the Design Review Committee. Regarding visibility from Route 7, a pictorial view was taken down Shelburne Road and a survey of the peaks of existing buildings was done. The proposed placement and height of the townhouse buildings and ESSH building is known. Based on the information both buildings will be hidden from view from Shelburne Road. As the buildings are set back on the property only the top couple of feet of the roof peak are visible assuming no vegetation on the site (there is vegetation on the site though). The proposal is for a three-story residential building with underground parking. The eave is 32’ high. The peak is 45’ high except at the entrance to the parking garage. There is 1,200’ of frontage to the end of the Dyer property with 840’ associated with existing buildings leaving 340’ of open area. Of the 340’ of open area, 180’ is in the middle of where the entry road will be located. The 160’ remaining is divided into five locations. There will be single family houses in front and the larger elderly housing building behind.  Examples of two ESSH buildings were shown (a building in Addison County along Route 7 and another building more like what is proposed).

 

Regarding fiscal impacts, the project will pay $500,000 annually in property taxes. The main streets and loop roads will be town roads. The remainder of the roads will be private, maintained by the homeowners association. The number of school age children from the development will be less than a regular housing development. The proposal will bring vitality to the village of Shelburne and help current and future businesses, stressed Mr. Giebink.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 9/24/08. Reg Gignoux asked if part of the conservation area includes the slopes. Mr. Giebink said there is an overlap to show where the slopes are located. The conservation land will be deeded to an entity.

 

Mr. Giebink gave the Board a video of Quail Hollow showing ESSH housing and elderly housing in cottage townhouses. The video describes services offered at the development.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Stephen Selin, Shelburne resident, noted a tall, massive building is proposed close to the river which will give a river paddler the feeling of being watched. Mr. Selin suggested the taller buildings be located toward the center of the site and the smaller buildings toward the edges. Mr. Selin also observed with the single family houses on the main access there will be lots of traffic using the main entrance.  John Giebink stated the building mentioned by the river will be under design review with the Design Review Committee. Elevations and pictures have not yet been released. The building will be three stories with underground parking located 300’ from the river on the flat plateau area. Shelburne Farms buildings were reviewed for design ideas. Regarding traffic, the single family houses on the road create a village streetscape. Of the population 40% will reside in elderly, assisted living, and ESSH units. Most of these residents are no longer driving a car. A traffic study will be done at Preliminary Plan review. There is a mix of buildings. The streetscape is created with the individual houses with front porches and the pedestrian amenities.

 

Gwen Webster asked the percentage of increase in the number of living units in the village. Dean Pierce will research the number of housing units in town currently.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

The Board will go into deliberative session to draft questions for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan review.

 

 

 

Stephen Selin appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself. Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of chairman.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin explained the footprint of the existing cottage located 40’ from the property line is 1,200 s.f. The cottage is not insulated and is dated in structure and style. The property owner (Saar) wants to move the cottage toward the center of the site (farther away from the lake) because the cottage is in the 102’ contour and there is erosion taking place. The owner wants to enlarge the size of the cottage by 50%. Trees will be removed to do the work. There will be some re-plantings. The cottage is within the 100’ setback and in the viewscape of the house on the adjacent lot. Both lots are owned by John and Amy Saar. Subdivision of the lots occurred before the property was purchased. The existing cottage is 40’ off the side setback, not 50’ per the regulations so the structure is nonconforming in two ways. Moving the cottage more to the center of the site will eliminate one incident of nonconformity. The camp will be designed in a bungalow style. The proposed new footprint is 1,760 s.f.

 

Jim Washburn mentioned the percent of increase should be in volume, not square footage. Stephen Selin pointed out the old regulations say ‘square footage’. The volume for the existing camp is 10,000 c.f. and the proposed volume is 15,000 c.f.  A garage will be built as well. The garage will be a conforming and complying structure. The garage is not part of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/1/08. Kay Kraushaar asked if there is a regulation about demolition of a building. John Adams said there is nothing in the regulations about tearing down and moving a structure. Dick Elkins observed the applicant is not simply redoing a building, but is proposing new construction. Mr. Elkins questioned if new construction can be considered under conditional use review. Mr. Adams suggested the Board may want to review the application under the addition to the regulation pertaining to modification of a noncomplying structure. Stephen Selin mentioned the proposed cottage will be better than the existing cottage. Amy Saar stated the cottage will be a guest house and has been used as such. Thought was given to expanding the cottage in the existing location, but the addition would hang out over the cliff. A new seawall was just installed. The proposal will make the cottage more conforming by moving it farther from the edge of the cliff. Kay Kraushaar stressed the regulations will not allow for what is proposed to be done, and if the Board granted approval a precedent would be set for others in the same situation. Per Section 1620.2 the existing structure (or some portion of the existing building) can be moved and the addition built. Ms. Kraushaar suggested moving 10’ from the front of the cottage to the back of the structure. Peter Gibbs pointed out if the structure were located out of the 100’ setback then conditional use approval would not be needed from the DRB.  There was mention of getting a legal opinion on interpretation of the regulations and how much modification can occur on the existing structure/location. The applicant and staff will get a legal opinion from their respective legal counsel.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Alice and Christophe Lissarrague appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Alice Lissarrague stated the view easements and language are shown on the plat. Christophe Lissarrague stated capacity at the sewer pump station will be checked when there is a hook up into the system (in reference to the comment from the Public Works Director relative to the Falls Bridge pump station).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/1/08. There was mention of the cut zone. The applicant agreed to put in pins where the sheep fence is located to have a more permanent feature on the property. Mark Sammut suggested the location of the pins be added to the lot survey as well as the easements. Dick Elkins asked if conservation easements have been considered. Ms. Lissarrague confirmed this.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

 

The Board entered Deliberative Session at 8:55 p.m. The regular meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

 

 

 

None.

 

 

The regular meeting was adjourned and Deliberative Session convened at 9:15 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Terry Kennaugh, Julie Kennaugh, Don Holly, Donal Curley, Kevin Worden, Judith Selin, Stephen Selin, Amy Saar, John Saar, Kathy Soulia, Ron Bushnell, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Design Review, Windows & Doors, 61 Harbor Road, Selin (DR07-22)

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

·        Conditional Use Application, Modification to Structure, 3735 Harbor Road, John and Amy Saar (CU08-12)

·        Subdivision Final Plan Amendment, Dissolve Lot and Modify Building Envelopes, 26 Turkey Ridge & 2532 Harbor Road, Storrs and Gamble (SUB03-07R3)

Chairman 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.

 

Stephen Selin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin stated design review approval was granted in November, 2007. The application is to modify windows and doors on the east, west, and north side of the building. The skylight will remain. The application to separate the building into two buildings has been withdrawn.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/15/08. John Adams noted the Design Review Committee recommended approval for windows and doors from the previous approval. Dick Elkins asked if there is still one commercial and one residential use in the building. Stephen Selin confirmed this.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Ron Bushnell appeared on behalf of the application. Kay Kraushaar recused herself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Ron Bushnell stated revised drawings have been submitted showing reduction of the scale of the wall. Also submitted are mock up photographs of the concrete wall and blocks and an aerial photograph of the lot showing the camp, leach field, driveway, and proposed location of the seawall in relation to the shore. Reg Gignoux interjected it is unfair to provide the Board with the information without time for review prior to the meeting. The information can be sent electronically. Mr. Gignoux said he will ask the Board if the information is adequate or if engineering drawings are needed. Mr. Bushnell stressed until conceptual approval of the drawings is received he will not spend more money on engineering drawings. Reg Gignoux countered the project is significant and what has been presented counters with what is stated in the Town Plan. The erosion solution presented is not the most imaginative solution. The applicant is being given every opportunity to present ideas. Mr. Bushnell referred to Section 1750.3 regarding lakeshore erosion control and structures not being concrete, metal, or wood unless of similar color to what is occurring in the area. A seawall can be concrete, but must be faced with similar color to the surroundings.

 

Peter Gibbs reviewed Section 1750.3.a.i-iv and asked the applicant’s response to the items. Ron Bushnell pointed out the current rendering shows the wall shortened in length, the top is lower, the block wall is smaller and lower, rip-rap was used instead of block and there are geo-cell plantings. At the south end the slope has been cut back and the block wall is shorter. There is a one-on-one slope. Reg Gignoux pointed out the property has not been surveyed so it is difficult to know exactly where the wall is located. The photograph with the wall drawn on it is not to scale. Ron Bushnell reiterated the drawings are conceptual. Information requested by the Board has been submitted. Peter Gibbs explained with design review there is not conceptual, preliminary, and final review of the plans. The proposal must meet the five items in Section 1750. Mr. Gibbs expressed reservation that the proposal meets the intent of Section 1750.3.a.i. There is no argument the toe needs to be protected, but the need to have the wall go to the top of the ledge is questionable if the purpose of the wall is to protect against wave action rather than frost erosion along the entire shoreline. The spirit of the section, continued Mr. Gibbs, is erosion control and walls are allowed for erosion occurring by the lake, not all the way up the face of the shore. When the property was purchased the owner knew what he was buying (i.e. shoreline property subject to erosion). Ron Bushnell countered there are places vertical and places undercut that are frost reactive and will continue to erode. The owner of the property is concerned for safety and that is why he wants the wall as designed.

 

Mark Sammut pointed out the plans by John Higgins show a considerable amount of land being regained with the wall. Mr. Sammut stated plans showing proposed and existing contour grades would be helpful. Dick Elkins added the end product needs to show the house, the access, and whatever else exists on the site. Ron Bushnell again stated once there is agreement conceptually to the proposal then a civil engineer will draft plans showing were everything is located.

 

Reg Gignoux noted there are three forms of erosion occurring at the site: wave action at the foot of the wall, shale thaw/freeze, and drainage from the watershed at the top of the ledge. Mr. Gignoux asked if there is any mitigation of the water flow from the land into the lake. Mr. Bushnell stated the third version of the plans addresses surface run off and frost action.

 

Jim Washburn expressed concern about manmade revisions beyond the 102’ area because that is not just addressing wave action.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a memorandum from staff, dated 10/9/08, and a written staff report on the application, dated 9/3/08. Reg Gignoux noted the Board will likely request an independent engineering review of any design that is submitted.  Peter Gibbs stated his interpretation of Section 1730 is a seawall is a protective measure from wave action, not to protect against freeze/thaw of shale. The safety concerns are acknowledged, but the property was purchased knowing there will be erosion of the shoreline. Safety concerns can be addressed in other ways, not just by adding five feet of soil. Ron Bushnell said he will discuss the matter with the property owner and will recommend a concrete wall with rip-rap on the front and fill behind.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Terry Kennaugh, 24 Chateaugay Road, asked about the orange markings on the rocks at the site. Mr. Bushnell stated the markings indicate the approximate facing of the wall. Mr. Kennaugh stated the area is a viewscape and suggested the northern 100’ be rip-rap and the toe back in against the wall which is buried and not seen. The wall could begin farther south, be angled and have rip-rap over the wall and up the slope. Ron Bushnell pointed out the entire wall is faced with rip-rap up to elevation 100’. Mr. Kennaugh suggested the rip-rap go up to the 103’ mark with the toe up under the wall. This would preserve the visual aspect from the north and protect the land from erosion.  Mr. Kennaugh agreed the cliff face can be dangerous and unstable. Pictures of a rip-rap wall covered in dirt and grapevines on the bay side were shown. Mr. Kennaugh urged doing bio-remediation of dirt and smaller fill in the rip-rap.

 

Don Holly, 21 General Green Road, observed no data on the current rate of erosion at the site have been submitted (i.e. erosion at one foot per year or one foot every 100 years). Also, the lines on the rock reveal land will be added at the sake of going into the lake. The Board is urged to consider the design relative to the purpose. The design is aesthetically unappealing, far from natural looking, and a destruction of public property into the lake. Assurance is needed that the design does not cause erosion on adjoining properties.

 

There were no further comments.

 

DELIBERATON/DECISION

 

Kay Kraushaar returned to the Board.

 

Stephen Selin appeared on behalf of the application. Reg Gignoux recused himself. Peter Gibbs assumed the duties of chairman.  A letter from David Conard was provided to the Board. The letter is Attorney Conard’s interpretation of Section 1330.2 and Section 1620.2.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin reviewed the proposal to relocate an existing cottage to be complying with the side setback and improve the infringement on the lakeshore by moving the cottage back 20’ from the lake. The cottage will be located to the middle of the lakeshore frontage on the lot.  A letter of support from the neighbor (Davis) was read. Mr. Selin reviewed the opinion from David Conard relative to extending, expanding, altering or modifying a non-complying structure. According to Mr. Conard moving a structure to improve the nonconformance is a modification. An example of approval of this situation by the Board is the boat launch ramp at the  Shelburne fishing access (approved January 23, 2003) and modifications by James Crook to his house on Clearwater Road that was moved to comply with the side yard setback (approved April 2, 2008). Also, a cottage at 3691 Harbor Road (Drumheller) was relocated to improve the nonconformance so there is precedence which gives the Board discretion over interpretation of the bylaw pertaining to expanding and relocating a nonconforming structure. Mr. Selin stated the Saar’s cottage will be small in size and diminutive on the site. The trees in front of the structure will remain. The other option is to simply approve the proposed building hanging over the edge of the lake. What is being proposed is an improvement to a worst case situation (i.e. locating the cottage in a clearing and in the viewscape which will adversely impact property value).

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/9/08. John Adams stated the Town Attorney advised a literal reading of the bylaw is that a tear down/rebuild is not permitted. Stephen Selin interjected the request is not to tear down and rebuild the structure. Past practice of the Zoning Board, noted Mr. Adams, has been to allow this. The Planning Commission is revisiting the section on existing non-complying structures in the next round of zoning revisions and will be reviewing the matter of renovating a structure hanging over a ledge and bringing the structure into compliance. The Crook application was approved with the condition the building be moved out of the setback.  Dick Elkins added the Crook building for the most part remained on the original foundation.  John Adams pointed out the Saar application is proposing an addition in the lakeshore overlay per Section 1330 and modification to a non-complying structure per Section 1620.2.

 

Dick Elkins observed it is unlikely changes to the bylaws will be made when there is the ability to make a building conform by relocating it on the lot, though the new location may not be as appealing. The Planning Commission will be looking to help those lots where it is impossible to conform.

 

Stephen Selin asked if the existing cottage can be expanded where it is located. Kay Kraushaar explained an overlap of the footprint of the existing structure by the expansion of the building is allowed.  John Saar stated common sense and aesthetics make it desirable to do the proposal. The tax base will be higher for the town as well. Attorney Conard argues the Crook case persuasively and asserts the principle property can be relocated in order to make it more conforming. There is agreement to the project by the neighbor to the north (the only one impacted by the project), and there is the aesthetic argument and legal precedent, stressed Mr. Saar.

 

Amy Saar asked what percentage of overlap is necessary. Peter Gibbs stated there must be an overlap of the existing foundation of some percentage. The application does not show an overlap, but rather a totally new location.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

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

 

Kevin Worden with Engineering Ventures appeared on behalf of the application. Peter Gibbs recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Kevin Worden explained the proposal to dissolve Lot 2 of the original four lot subdivision (three building lots and one common lot). The acreage from Lot 2 will be added to Lot 1 (2.88 acres added) and Lot 3 (1.88 acres added). The building envelope on Lot 3 will be changed to the shape of a trapezoid to allow a guest house to be built in the future. The building envelope is set back 24’ from the new boundary line. The building envelope on Lot 1 will be slightly changed in shape (covers the same area as the original approval) and tucked into the existing pine trees. The subdivision is a PRD so internal setbacks can be waived by the Board.

 

Dick Elkins asked that the property owners consider planting some low growth seedlings in the buffer area to support the existing wildlife corridor.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 10/15/08.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Peter Gibbs returned to the Board.

 

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.