Planning Commission Minutes - 2005
MINUTES SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY THE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHANGES, IF ANY, WILL BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.
TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Claude LaPierre, Reg Gignoux. (Fred Schmidt, Kay Kraushaar, and Tucker Holland were absent.)
STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.
OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Oda Hubbard, James Maille, Joseph Maille, Jim Collins, Peter Gibbs, Mike Dussault, Anne Ritter, Trafton Crandall, John Wagner, Maureen O’Brien, Bill Powers, Margaret Mallette, Sylvia Maille, Rose Garritano, Peter Richardson, Andrew Kahora, Carol Cherboniak, Lee Zachary, Jim Carroll, Richard Marko, Chris Jenson, Laurel Neme, Kevin Worden, Grant Bush.
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (1/27/05)
2. PRD Sketch Plan Review Continuance, John Wagner/Wag, LLC, 4592 Dorset St. (SUB05-01)
3. Request for Support/Waiver of Impact Fees, Bullrock Corp., Harrington Circle Residential Units
4. PRD Sketch Plan Review, Ram N. Sinha, 2 & 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB05-02)
5. Final Plan Review, Roger & Mignonne Bourgea, 59 Webster Road (SUB90-7R1)
6. Request from Peter Richardson
7. Other Business, Correspondence
8. Adjournment
1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2005
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Reg Gignoux, to approve the 1/27/05 minutes with the following corrections:
Page 1, Item #2, Design Review Amendment – correct the spelling of “Field House”;
Page 3, Applicant Comments, 1st paragraph, last sentence - change “former Sutton Farm” to “Maille Farm”;
Page 4, Staff Report, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence (reference to Stop sign) - change “…installed on Dorset Street” to “…installed on the new road”;
Page 6 – correct the spelling of “Maeck”;
Page 7, Other Business, Update of Village Plan - change “…reaffirm the village plan is needed” to “…reaffirm support of the village plan is suggested”.
VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
2. PRD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, JOHN WAGNER/WAG, LLC, 4592 DORSET STREET (SUB05-01)
Trafton Crandall, engineer with Llewellyn-Howley, appeared on behalf of the application. Chairman Peterson explained the three stage review process with subdivision applications.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Crandall stated the comments from the Conservation Committee have been received. A site visit was conducted with the Planning Commission and the Conservation Committee. Four concerns were voiced: the proposed houses will be visible from the road and in the area of the “Map of Significant Views”, impervious surface will create run off into a sensitive area, the location of the homes cuts up the open field, and the access road to Dorset Street is in the midst of an active farm and could have an adverse impact on the farm operation. Mr. Crandall stated the houses can be moved to the northern side of the property (closer to the horse farm). Both the northwest and northeast ends of the property were suggested. The Map of Significant Views indicates the property contains foreground areas of primary views and middle ground view areas. Moving the houses to the north would mitigate some of the significant views impact. Regarding the road from Dorset Street accessing the lots, the applicant’s position is that the road is not significantly long and the grade not great. Thus, it is felt that run off can be mitigated and treated with best management practices (grass and grass swales). It is not felt the land across Dorset Street will be impacted because the run off will be caught before reaching the area. It was noted a gravel road is considered an impervious surface per State of Vermont storm water regulations. Regarding the homes cutting up the open field, the houses could be relocated to the northern end of the property, and, as a PRD allows smaller lots, there will be as much open field as possible. The waste water system will be moved as well. The existing homestead will be connected to property that is continuous with the existing, working farm to the south. The access road will not conflict with the farm if the houses are moved to the north end of the property. Wetlands delineation was done in January, 2005, when there was low snow cover (the fields have not been mowed). Preliminary findings indicate a Class 3 wetlands area and upland, non-wetlands at the top third of the property (where the houses are to be relocated).
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/10/05. Dean Pierce mentioned the Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee has not provided comment on the application yet. The Natural Resource and Conservation Committee’s comments with regard to clustering suggest the houses be arranged in a farmstead-like layout and in relation to each other. Dean Pierce noted that if the houses are located in a linear fashion with additional screening, the road could run parallel between the houses and the hedgerow which will increase the distance between the boundary line and the houses.
Rick Peterson asked about having half acre lots for the houses and the remainder of the land being open. Mr. Crandall agreed this could be considered, but there is a limit to how small the lots should be so the houses are not too close together. Also, there is a 75’ setback from the northern property line regardless. Rick Peterson suggested the houses be clustered, but in a line along the northerly boundary line to lower the impact on the viewshed. Mr. Crandall agreed this is an option, but added the farther to the west the houses are located, the longer the access road. Chairman Peterson pointed out drainage will flow the other way once the 400’ elevation mark is hit.
Trafton Crandall stated lot #2 is not proposed as a developable lot, but will be common land. Six lots are to be developed, and the brick farmhouse will be renovated. The farmhouse will remain with the large lot which will be available for agricultural use and no further development. A detailed survey will be done as part of the Preliminary Plan review application. The survey will show the crown of the property. It is likely a couple of houses will be visible as well as some of the roof lines and second floors of other houses. Dean Pierce reiterated that because the farmhouse is in the perimeter buffer, the house must be on a separate five acre lot excluded from the PRD and the large lot. The applicant needs to do a two-lot subdivision and a PRD. The Planning Commission needs to determine how the land should be protected and state this in the approval, advised Mr. Pierce. Mr. Crandall assured details relative to the property with the farmhouse can be settled.
Reg Gignoux commented on making the layout of the houses farm-friendly (i.e. it is easier to hay or grow crops without corners or barriers). Mr. Gignoux also asked if the mound system can be designed to appear part of the natural contour of the land, and if lot #2 will be used for the primary or secondary system. Mr. Crandall stated the waste water system will be bound by the contour of the land. If the land has a “shoulder”, this can be used to disguise the mound system. Lot #2 will not be used for the waste water system. A certain amount of contour is needed to meet regulations. The brick farmhouse will be hooked to the new septic system via a line from the septic tank to a pump/collection station then to the mound system. A new well will be drilled for the farmhouse. If there is enough water, it will be shared with the other proposed houses. If there is not enough water, then a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued, stated Mr. Crandall.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Powers, Dorset Street, asked about the planned use of the farmhouse after renovation. Mr. Crandall stated the house will be a single family residence. Mr. Powers expressed concern about having enough water to support seven wells. Mr. Powers asked about specifying single story ranch houses for the development. Rick Peterson explained the zone is not in the design review district so the Planning Commission can not dictate architecture, only colors and landscaping. There is a 35’ height limit. Mr. Powers suggested four houses might be more reasonable a development and provide more yard space. There was a question about the VAST trail. Mr. Crandall stated the VAST trail followed the north side of the property and will have to be relocated. Mr. Powers stated in his opinion “PRD” stands for “Planned Runaway Development” and makes a farce out of five acre zoning.
Rose Garritano, Dorset Street, owner of the horse farm to the north of the applicant’s property, asked if the brick farmhouse will be sold as well as the open farmland, and priced so a farmer could afford to buy it. Mr. Crandall stated there may be some language in the deeds for the PRD lots concerning common land and an easement for agricultural use by the owner of the farmhouse property. The agricultural land will not be available for further development so it may not be available for sale separately. Ms. Garritano pointed out if the houses are built on the northern boundary of the property, then the area would be transformed from rural to a neighborhood, a drastic change in character. Ms. Garritano asked that the site plan be laid out so that the horse farm is not on the other side of the hedge along the “lollipop road to the neighborhood”.
Richard Marko, Barstow Road, asked the value of the houses and who will pay taxes on the private road, the private mound system, and lot #2. Mr. Crandall stated the taxes on common land will be equally divided among the owners of the PRD lots. The owner of the brick house will pay taxes on the land with the house. There will be easements for the waste water system. The road will be owned in common by the PRD lots owners. There is no plan to build affordable housing. The lots may be sold undeveloped, and the buyer will build their own house.
Margaret Mallette, Dorset Street, asked if there will be a deed restriction on the square footage of the houses. Mr. Crandall stated this has not been considered, but there are setback requirements that could impact the size of the building footprints.
Maureen O’Brien, Barstow Road, expressed concern about smaller lots and seven wells, and one septic system serving seven houses. Ms. O’Brien felt seven houses on 40 acres is dense development for the area, and having houses on both sides of the driveway (access road) creates a neighborhood which is not in character with the Rural 1 zone. Ms. O’Brien urged enhancing the tree line along the northern boundary to lessen the impact of the houses if they are built in a line along the property line to the north.
Laurel Neme, Dorset Street, pointed out the proposed PRD may be a precedent in the Dorset Street area of Shelburne. Ms. Neme urged having a third party easement on the open space to provide protection from further development (there may be less protection if the land is held in common only). Alternatively, the land could be donated to the town. Seven wells or one well serving seven houses will have an impact on the water supply to existing houses, stated Ms. Neme, adding water studies have not been done to determine the water supply in the area.
Oda Hubbard, resident, suggested the layout show a complex of buildings facing each other in an interesting way so a group of houses is seen from the road. Hiring a landscape architect and making the lot layout more appealing might make the proposal more acceptable to the neighbors.
Sylvia Maille, Dorset Street, observed the septic system appears close to the road. She expressed concern about the impact of the septic system on the water used by cows that graze on the opposite side of Dorset Street. Impact on the water supply to the house and barn by the proposed number of wells is also a concern. Mr. Crandall pointed out the septic system can be moved though the proposed location provides more of a setback and meets state rules. The system will be designed according to state regulations so there should be no impact greater than 300’ away. There might be more impact from manure in the pasture land leaching into the water supply for the cows. Mr. Crandall described the soils in the area (mainly clay) and how a properly designed mound system functions. Pretreatment of waste before reaching the mound system is a possibility. Rose Garritano clarified the soils are Vergennes clay, very heavy with poor drainage. Mr. Crandall stated test pits were done and suitable soils were verified. The soils are not great which means the system will have to be engineered and enlarged to function properly and support 21 bedrooms (seven houses).
Sylvia Maille mentioned house size and lot size, suggesting the size of the house be restricted to be in compliance with the size of the lot. Rick Peterson explained the Planning Commission can discuss lot size, but not house size. A good house design on the right configuration of a lot works well, and having as much land open as possible so it can be used productively is desired. Laurel Neme urged the Planning Commission to maintain the rural character of the area with regard to house and lot size. Mr. Marko pointed out 5,000 s.f. houses on half acre lots built one after another will mimic the development on Dorset Street in South Burlington, but Shelburne has five acre zoning to prevent houses from being built on top of each other. Rick Peterson reiterated the objective is to try to keep as much land open as possible and not create high density development. There was a question about setbacks. Dean Pierce pointed out the Planning Commission can waive setbacks. However, the 75’ setback on the perimeter of the property cannot be waived.
Carol Cherboniak, Dorset Street, asked if the wetlands report will be available to the public. Mr. Crandall stated the report will be presented to the Planning Commission and become part of the public record.
Hilda White asked if lot #2 should be a separate lot. Dean Pierce stated the road should be done as an easement across lot #2, rather than a separate lot. Lot #2 could be grouped with the large open land or with the brick farmhouse.
Reg Gignoux asked if the waste water system will be the responsibility of a homeowners association, and if there will be a separate lot for legal remedy of failure. Mr. Crandall explained typically an easement for use of the waste water system is established, and the deed language states the responsibility of the homeowners association for maintenance and upkeep.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
PRD Sketch Plan, Seven Residential Lots, Wagner, 4592 Dorset Street (SUB05-01)
Chairman Peterson again explained the three step review process with a PRD and subdivision, and read the draft approval with 12 conditions as noted in the 2/10/05 staff report with the addition of another condition as follows: “In addition to compliance with setback requirements as a condition of preliminary plat approval for the septic system and storm water run off, the applicant shall show there will be no adverse impact on the Maille farm pond on the east side of Dorset Street.” Minor amendments were made to the conditions in the staff report as noted below:
-The first sentence in the 3rd condition is deleted so the condition reads: “The access drive shall be depicted within a right-of-way and not as a separate parcel.”
-In the second sentence of the 5th condition, the word “recommended” is replaced with “presented” and the words “northeast or” are deleted.
-In the second sentence of the 7th condition (regarding qualified conservation organizations to which easements would be transferred) the words “including the Town of Shelburne” are inserted following the words “qualified conservation organizations”.
-In the 10th condition, “Shelburne Paths Committee” is changed to “Shelburne Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee”.
Hilda White expressed concern about the number of conditions of approval being proposed, and that the layout of the development is not known. Ms. White suggested the review be continued pending further information. Reg Gignoux agreed, adding the plan as proposed lacks imagination and is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Also, the applicant needs to think about where the community septic system will be located. Claude LaPierre echoed the comments of the other commissioners, noting water supply is an issue. Chairman Peterson stated he can not support the plan as proposed, but suggested a vote be taken so the applicant can work on a plan that addresses the concerns expressed without a deadline looming. Mr. Peterson pointed out if the current sketch plan is approved, then the town is entrenched to that plan. Reg Gignoux recognized the efforts by the applicant to listen to what has been said about the proposal and address issues, but Shelburne deserves creative development to what is being done in surrounding towns. The development needs to integrate with the land which will be a challenge in a field.
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to grant sketch plan approval to John Wagner/WAG, LLC for the plan submitted subject to the 13 conditions as stated and modified in the staff report, dated 2/10/05. VOTING: 0 ayes, 4 nays (Peterson, Gignoux, White, LaPierre); motion did not carry.
3. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT/WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES, BULLROCK CORP., HARRINGTON CIRCLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
No one appeared on behalf of the request.
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to continue review of the waiver request by Bullrock Corp. until 3/10/05. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
4. PRD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, RAM N. SINHA, 2 & 104 SLEDRUNNER ROAD (SUB05-02)
Mike Dussault and Peter Gibbs appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mike Dussault oriented the proposed development on the site plan, explaining the applicant owns three contiguous lots on Sledrunner Road off of Harbor Road. There is a 3.5 acre lot with an existing cottage and a three-bay garage, a 10.1 acre vacant lot, and a 6.3 acre lot with lake frontage. There are wetlands along the 3.5 acre lot running north to south onto the 10 acre lot. The zone is Rural 3 which has a 100,000 s.f. minimum lot size. The 6.3 acre lot is in the Lakeshore Overlay District as is some of the 10 acre lot and the 3.5 acre lot. The PRD is proposed to exclude the 6.3 acre lot. The 3.5 acre lot and the 10.1 acre lot will be combined then (re)subdivided into five building lots and one common area lot. One of the five building lots will contain the existing cottage. The garage will be relocated. Lot #6 will have a conservation easement for open space. A common septic system to serve the existing cottage and four new residences as well as the 6.3 acre lot will be located on the common lot. The road layout follows the contours of the land. The house sites best suit visual impacts from the lake. There will be restrictions on clearing and cutting on the east side of the house lots. The stand of trees along the shore line will remain.
Rick Peterson asked if half of Lot #6 to the west is under conservation. Mike Dussault explained the conservation easement is for 33% open space per PRD requirements. There is a development restriction on the western portion of the lot (wetlands area).
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/24/05. In response to a question about the 1977 subdivision of the property, Dean Pierce explained two lots were part of a subdivision, but proposed Lot #6 was not. Regarding a density bonus, Mr. Pierce felt a density bonus is not required with the amount of land in the development and what is covered by easements (this contrasts the calculations by the applicant’s engineer). Density is based on building lot area. A density bonus looks at land in the development outside of easements.
Rick Peterson commented the sight distance on the corner of Sledrunner Road and Harbor Road is an issue.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Grant Bush, original developer of the property under discussion, stated his disappointment with the development proposal. The land was laid out and developed with what was envisioned for the area, said Mr. Bush, and one house was built on 10 acres to minimize the impact on the wetlands. Lots of testing was done to the north, but the soils would not support development. Now, it appears there will be six houses built. Mr. Bush stated the wetlands flow north to the lake and run heavy in the spring and then dry up in the summer months. There is a special species of frog living in the wetlands. There is concern for phosphorous from the waste water system going into the lake which already has a phosphorous problem. Mike Dussault stated a representative from the state and a wetlands consultant confirmed the findings on the property. Pretreatment of waste water from each house before the waste water enters the septic system can be done. There is also a replacement system. Mr. Bush interjected there will still be an impact on the lake. Mr. Bush mentioned lake access was established for two lots when he developed the land, not five houses as is now proposed. Peter Gibbs stated there may be opportunity for another easement. There is about 600’ of frontage with the property.
Jim Carroll speaking for Lee Zachary, neighbor, noted Mr. Zachary has submitted a letter, dated 2/24/05, outlining his concerns about the proposed development. The concerns echo Mr. Bush’s statements. There are also some legal concerns. The developers have not spoken with adjacent landowners about the development. Setbacks and impact on wetlands will not be known until the wetlands are delineated which can not be done until spring. Mr. Carroll asked about the classification of the wetlands. Mr. Dussault replied Class 2 is presumed, but the wetlands consultant will confirm the classification. There is only one Class 1 wetlands in the entire state. Soil samples have been taken. The downhill toe of the septic system has a 50’ setback from surface water. Kevin Worden, Engineering Ventures, stated Class 3 wetlands are not under state jurisdiction. There is a 50’ setback for Class 2 wetlands. The applicant is assuming the worst condition which is Class 2 wetlands. Rick Peterson noted the Town Engineer will review and comment on the wetlands issue.
Mr. Carroll mentioned having a design that could mitigate impacts to neighbors (i.e. the access road closer to Bay Road), but the proposed design appears to be to maximize density by combining lots. The lots, however, may not be legally combinable due to agreements with neighboring properties. Mr. Carroll advised the neighbors and their legal counsel should have been involved before the hearing before the Planning Commission. This is notice legal action will be taken if the process is not ceased, stated Mr. Carroll.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Sketch Plan, PRD, Ram N. Sinha, 2 & 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB05-02)
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to conduct a site visit on March 10th at 5 p.m., meeting at the Harbor Road entryway.
DISCUSSION: The applicant will flag the lot lines, building envelopes, and wetlands area(s).
VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to continue review of the PRD proposal submitted by Ram Sinha for 2 & 104 Sledrunner Road (SUB05-02) until March 10, 2005. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
5. FINAL PLAN REVIEW, ROGER & MIGNONNE BOURGEA, 59 WEBSTER ROAD (SUB90-7R1)
Jim Collins and Kevin Worden appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Kevin Worden reported comments from the town departments (fire, water) have been addressed. Jim Collins stated a homeowners association has been created. There are easements on Lot #4 for utilities. Regarding the driveway on Lot #2, eventually the mobile home will be removed and replaced with a house so the existing driveway will be shared for access. There was mention of a sidewalk easement on Webster Road. Mr. Collins pointed out the sidewalk can be extended in the Route 7 right-of-way so an easement is not needed.
There was lengthy discussion of the driveways being right turn only (exit to the north) with completion of the Route 7 widening project. The applicant noted the lots and driveways are (pre)existing and VTrans was approached about the matter, but no action has occurred to date. Reg Gignoux urged reconfiguration of the driveways for the affected two lots because it will be a nuisance to exit to the north only. Rick Peterson agreed this may be opportunity to avoid a right-turn only situation even though the driveways and lots are existing and the applicant is willing to accept the situation as is. Mr. Peterson said he would be open to a final plat amendment for reconfiguration of the access to the most northerly lots should the applicant have success with his talks with VTrans about the matter. Kevin Worden stated state standards for curb cuts must be met, and it is assumed VTrans is following this mandate with the Route 7 project.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 2/24/05. In response to a question about the Stop sign on the driveway, Dean Pierce explained the police wanted a visual cue for people using the driveway to stop and to help avoid left hand turns out of the access road. Rick Peterson pointed out a Stop sign can not be enforced without an ordinance. It was noted there are only two houses on the access road.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Final Plan, (Re)Subdivision, Roger Bourgea, 59 Webster Road (SUB90-7R1)
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to continue the final plan review for 59 Webster Road by Roger Bourgea pending further information. VOTING: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
6. REQUEST FROM PETER RICHARDSON
Peter Richardson briefed the Planning Commission on the vision for the former Shelburne Inn in order to uncover outstanding issues and help develop a strategy for moving forward with redevelopment of the property. The goal is to restore and preserve the historic building and tie into the pedestrian character of the village. Other buildings on the property will be redesigned to reflect the character of the area. There will be a mix of commercial and residential uses. Landscaping will be improved on the site. Ways to address parking issues will be explored. It is hoped to complete the zoning process by summer then start construction and continue work indoors through the winter months. Potential uses for the Inn include shops, a tavern/restaurant, café or ice cream shop, office use (on the second floor). If there is not a restaurant, then there could be residential units. The motel could be condominiums or apartment units (15 to 18 units within the same footprint). Addition of a third story is a possibility.
Rick Peterson asked about the situation with the mobile home park. Mr. Richardson stated the matter does not impact plans. Discussions are ongoing with the mobile home park regarding easements relative to access to the park and parking for the Inn.
Mr. Richardson stated the Village Core Overlay District bylaws may need to be amended to accommodate the plans for the site or applicable provisions of Ch. 117, Section 4417, could be followed. Chairman Peterson stated the Planning Commission will consider the proposal for amendment relative to how it works for the entire district. Mr. Richardson suggested the amendment apply only to large sites (greater than 40,000 s.f.). Dean Pierce noted current zoning regulations will not allow what is proposed for the Inn, and amending the Village Core Overlay District could impact other sites in the village (i.e. churches) or change significant features of the district that the town does not want changed. A Planned Unit Development does not contemplate redevelopment. Options include adjustment of the Village Core Overlay District bylaws, addressing PUD requirements (remove the buffer), increasing density for residential development, or using the waiver provision in Ch. 117 so a variance is not necessary. The consensus of the Commission was in support of PUD changes rather than amending the Overlay District bylaws. Mr. Richardson will work with Dean Pierce on a plan.
7. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE
Sidewalk on North Side of Harbor Road
Chairman Peterson reported the Bike/Pedestrian Paths Committee is upset a sidewalk on the north side of Harbor Road is not being installed as recommended. It was noted the Planning Commission did discuss the number of crosswalks, access to the fields, avoiding people jaywalking across the road from a sidewalk on the north side of Harbor Road when the Bullrock application was reviewed.
Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Dean Pierce noted the meeting on March 2nd is cancelled. Mike Munson will be out of town.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
JANUARY 27, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt. (Reg Gignoux was absent.)
STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.
OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Oda Hubbard, Joseph Maille, Michael and Karen Villante, Anne Ritter, Trafton Crandall, J. Wagner, Maureen O’Brien, Mark Jaffe, Chris Kapsulis, Gregg Beldock, Adam Brown, Bill Powers, Margaret Mallette, Sylvia Maille, Barb Burroughs, Joel Goldberg, Terry McKnight, Ted Winfield, Bob Merrett, Tom Anderson, Robyn Lane, Achigr Moy, Rose Garritano, Peter Garritano.
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (1/13/05)
2. Design Review Amendment, Fieldhouse, LLC, 19 Harbor Road/Harrington Circle (DR04-014R1)
3. PRD Sketch Plan Review, John Wagner/Wag, LLC, 4592 Dorset St. (SUB05-01)
4. Other Business, Correspondence
5. Adjournment
1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and welcomed Achigr Moy and Robyn Lane with Community Organization Development, and Ann Ritter, UVM student, who were observing the meeting.
APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2005
MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the 1/13/05 minutes with the following correction:
Page 3, Applicant Comments, 2nd line – correct the spelling of “artisan”.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
2. DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT, FILEDHOUSE, LLC, 19 HARBOR ROAD/HARRINGTON CIRCLE (DR04-014R1)
Gregg Beldock appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Beldock explained the minor changes to the housing units (windows nine-over-one, porches shortened to 20’, footprint of the building shortened). The changes will help ease the “tightness” of the site. The overall height of the buildings has not changed. There will be changes to the exterior lights on the building. The skirt board will be 10” wide. Window muntins will be outside the glass of the windows.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/27/05. Dean Pierce explained the changes to the lighting (front door light eliminated, light on porch ceiling mounted, light above the garage door eliminated). There are to be no posts in front of any doors or windows.
Fred Schmidt asked why the changes were being made to the buildings. Mr. Beldock stated architects for the buyer (Community Land Trust) thought the site as originally designed was too tight.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Oda Hubbard asked if the attics can be used since the footprint is being made smaller. Mr. Beldock stated the owners can convert the attic space into a bedroom if desired.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Design Review Amendment, Minor Building Changes, 19 Harbor Road/Harrington Circle, Fieldhouse, LLC (RD04-014R1)
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to grant approval to amend the previously approved design review application in connection with a 14-unit PRD proposed for 19 Harbor Road consistent with the plans specified and subject to the following conditions:
1. Porch skirt boards shall be 5/4”x 10” material.
2. Exterior mounted lights next to front entry doors shall be eliminated and replaced with low profile ceiling mounted lights on the porch roof above the door, and exterior rear door lighting shall remain as presented.
3. All lights shown above garage doors shall be removed.
4. All lighting shall comply with Town lighting standards.
5. Porch posts shall not be placed in front of any windows or doors.
6. Large double-hung windows shall be of “nine-over-one” design throughout the project while small windows shall be “six-over-one” design.
7. Window muntins shall be applied to the exterior of windows by the window manufacturer, and if this is not possible, the applicant shall return to the Historic Preservation and Review Commission to present an alternative option.
8. Previous conditions pertaining to materials, details, and colors shall remain in effect.
VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
3. PRD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, JOHN WAGNER/WAG, LLC, 4592 DORSET STREET (SUB05-01)
Trafton Crandall, engineer with Llewellyn-Howley, appeared on behalf of the application. Chairman Peterson explained the three stage review process with subdivision applications.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Crandall explained the proposal to subdivide 39.7 acres into six lots. The property is in the Rural 1 district which allows one unit per five acres. A total of seven units would be allowed on the acreage. There is an existing house on Dorset Street (brick farmhouse with barns in the rear). The house, a 200 year old structure, is on the historic resources map as a state historic resource. The proposal includes maintaining the house on the large lot. The six subdivided lots are proposed as a PRD. The lots will be clustered to maintain as much open space as possible. The property is a hayfield. There is a ridge running north-south. There is a tree row along the boundary line running south-north. The area to the west is wooded. There are potential wetlands on the property (this is shown on the site plan, but not yet officially delineated). The proposed development is located away from the wetlands area. Lot sizes will range in size from .77 acre to .94 acre. Setbacks for a PRD are met with the new construction, but the existing farmhouse does not meet the 75’ setback for a PRD. A variance may be needed. As an option, the large parcel could be treated as a separate lot to the six subdivided lots. Mr. Crandall reviewed and discussed visual resources (there is a ridge and the lots are out of the foreground and located to hide view of the houses as much as possible), agricultural soils (the land with the farmhouse will likely remain in agricultural use), and ownership of the lot created by the driveway (this area can be protected as open space). Regarding traffic, the six single family units will have minimal impact on traffic. The driveway can be moved to the north side of the brick farmhouse to eliminate conflicts with the former Sutton Farm. There is a VAST trail on the north side of the property running east to south.
Claude LaPierre asked how far from Dorset Street the houses will be located. Mr. Crandall stated the first lot is approximately 300’ from the road. The front end of the houses may be visible. Mr. Crandall showed the location of existing residences to the north of the property. Mr. LaPierre asked why the development is not to the north of the Sutton house. Mr. Crandall explained better screening of the houses is possible if they are located on the south side of the property.
Rick Peterson asked about the use of the Maille property to the south. Sylvia Maille stated the land is in agricultural use (animals graze the land and crops can be planted). Fred Schmidt confirmed there is a working farm to the south of the proposed development. It was noted the Maille farm supports approximately 150 head of cattle (milk cows, yearlings, heifers, steers), crops and pasture land. Claude LaPierre pointed out if the houses were built on the north side of the property, the southern portion could be used for rotational grazing. Rick Peterson suggested the development be located in the northwest corner. Mr. Crandall pointed out the houses will be more visible in this location. It was noted the Planning Commission will look at the location of the development and entry to Dorset Street during a site visit.
Rick Peterson asked about common land. Trafton Crandall reviewed various ways to protect open land (common land, easements, development rights, agricultural use). Chairman Peterson asked if a large free standing lot will remain. Mr. Crandall confirmed this. Fred Schmidt asked about the land within the circular access road. Mr. Crandall stated this will be common land for the six lots maintained by a homeowners association.
There was discussion of the community septic system (mound system). There will be a designated area for the septic system and easements granted to each lot. Perk tests have to be done. There was mention of the well water supply. Mr. Crandall stated each lot will have its own well. The brick farmhouse will have a new drilled well due to the location of the proposed community septic system. Tucker Holland asked if there is a manure pit on the neighboring Maille farm. Mr. Maille stated manure is stockpiled and spread in the summer. There is not a manure pit.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/27/05. Dean Pierce mentioned the Fire Chief would like to see a fire pond or cistern. The Police Chief would like a Stop sign installed on Dorset Street. Public Works feels the size of the culverts under Dorset Street need to be increased. The Natural Resources Committee will submit comments following a site visit. The Sutton farmstead is on the National Register of Historic Places, noted Mr. Pierce. A lot of at least five acres is needed for the farmstead. It may be necessary to do a subdivision and a PRD because the farmhouse is located within the proposed PRD buffer. Dean Pierce asked about possible contamination of the farm pond. Mr. Crandall stated there is about 500’ isolation from the proposed community septic system which will be constructed to state standards so there should not be a risk to the pond. If a filtrate treatment system is installed, this will provide further treatment to effluent and decrease contaminants in the waste water. The water wells will be uphill from the septic system.
Fred Schmidt commented that the proposal does not seem to be compatible with the agricultural operation in the area, and it carves up an historic farm site, using up the backyard area. The farmstead is one of the most prominent farm sites on the street, and the house is 200 years old. There is an operating farm, one of the few left, trying to operate on both sides of Dorset Street. Mr. Crandall offered if the development is moved to the north side of the property, there will be more of a connection to the property in the back and contiguous connection to the adjacent farm.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mark Jaffe, Governors Lane, pointed out seven houses on a 40 acre site is better than the high density trailer park that was previously proposed, but the surrounding properties are large parcels (15 acres) and the proposed building lots are much smaller (less than an acre) and out of character with the area. The proposed development opens a Pandora’s Box in a part of Shelburne that has been identified as a rural district with large lots. Rick Peterson explained five acre zoning is required in the district so with a PRD only seven lots would be allowed on the applicant’s property. A zoning change would be needed in order to allow higher density, and the public would have to approve such a change. Trafton Crandall added it will be deeded that no more lots will be allowed on the remainder of the land so the land will stay open.
Bill Powers asked who willd own the open land. Rick Peterson stated the land would be commonly owned or one owner. Mr. Crandall stated if the lot has to be designated for the existing use, then another instrument would be needed for the open land. Mr. Powers expressed concern supplying six houses with water from six wells will be pulling water from each other’s well. Also, the septic system located by Dorset Street will end up draining eventually into Shelburne Pond. Rick Peterson assured the septic system and wells must be properly engineered.
Terry McKnight, Governors Lane, suggested the land in the center of the access road circle be common land for the development and the remainder of the land go with the farm (rather than just giving five acres to the farmhouse and leaving the rest as common land). This will better protect the land from development in the future if the zoning in the district should change. Mr. Crandall stated it may be required with a PRD to put language in the deed stating no further development. Mr. McKnight suggested the lots be linear along the north edge of the property, rather than in a cul-de-sac design. A linear layout will yield more open space to the south adjacent to the farm.
Margaret Mallette stated two-story houses can be seen regardless of the ridge. Also, the development is high density for the area since there are not six houses on five acre lots on the street.
Sylvia Maille, Dorset Street, stated the proposed driveway is across from the farm barn and trailer (lots of farm equipment and farm traffic). Ms. Maille suggested the driveway would be better located on the north side of the house. Regarding wells, Ms. Maille testified they have low water pressure. Also, the farm land is fertilized and wells must be 100’ from the property line. Ms. Maille asked who will maintain the brush on the applicant’s property which is overgrown and impacts sight distance. Clustering the houses is preferred because it is easier to farm (easier to farm five acres than one acre), noted Ms. Maille. There is the safety concern of having families and children coming onto the farm and getting hurt somehow. People buying the houses need to know there is an operating farm next door and there will be noise and odor, stressed Ms. Maille. The issue of using the (common/open) land for farming and identifying who the landowner is also needs consideration.
Rose Garritano, owner of the horse farm adjacent to the property, expressed concern about the potential impact on the wells when manure is spread. Also, there is noise and odor from the horse farm.
Maureen O’Brien, Barstow Road, referred to the originally proposal for a trailer park and questioned if the proposed mound system will support the number of bedrooms proposed. Ms. O’Brien observed the soil testing appears to have shifted to the east side of the ridge from the west side. Trafton Crandall stated the houses will have a minimum of three bedrooms. There are three bedrooms in the brick farmhouse as well. Additional testing has not been done since the trailer park application. Test pits identified the west side of the slope to have the best depth to the seasonal high water table. The size and type of the mound system will be based on the water table and the perk rate. Perk tests have not yet been done so the footprint shows a “guessed” rate based on the soil type. In addition, the secondary filtrate system can be considered. It is known there are suitable soils for seven houses. Margaret Mallette shared her experience in siting a septic system on their property. Sylvia Maille recalled other people wanted to buy property and build one or two houses, but could not due to septic limitations. Rick Peterson assured more detail on the septic system will be required at the next stage of review. Only a total of seven houses are allowed on the amount of available acreage per the zoning.
Bill Powers asked if there is any effect on federal funding by the development since the farmhouse is on the federal register. Terry McKnight noted the registry is concerned with the structure, not the land.
Pete Garritano expressed concern that the people who buy the houses in the proposed development will not want agricultural activities on their doorstep. The development impacts the rural view and character of the area. Mr. Garritano asked when the plans were drafted. Mr. Crandall stated the plans were done in the last couple of months, and effort has been made to protect the viewshed along the front of the property and disguise the houses as much as possible. Development is being proposed, conceded Mr. Crandall, but effort is being made to minimize impact.
Karen Villante, resident on Dorset Street south of the proposed development (back of the ridge) stated the Garritano house is visible from her house (so the proposed development will be visible). Ms Villante asked if there are other high density, cluster developments within a certain amount of acreage in the Rural 1 district or if Mr. Wagner’s application is a precedent. Regarding water pressure, Ms. Villante stated their well which is 222’ deep yields two gallons per minute. There is concern six more wells on the back side of the ridge will impact water volume and pressure. (Hilda White noted the Beaver Creek development is a cluster development as is the Meack farm. The Planning Commission has been trying to cluster buildings in farm areas and maintain more open space.)
John Wagner, applicant, assured he is sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns. There have been discussions of locating the development to the north. Mr. Wagner described his plan to renovate the existing farmhouse to be a proud landmark in Shelburne and to work with everyone to develop the best plan possible.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
PRD Sketch Plan, Seven Residential Lots, Wagner, 4592 Dorset Street (SUB05-01)
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to conduct a site visit on 2/5/05, 9 a.m. (meet at the Sutton farm house). VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to continue the review of the PRD application for seven lots at 4592 Dorset St. by John Wagner (SUB05-01) until 2/10/05. VOTING: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
4. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE
Request to Waive Impact Fees
The Planning Commission discussed the request to waive impact fees by Bullrock Corporation/Fieldhouse LLC for their affordable housing development on Harbor Road. More information on past practice was requested. The Commission also wanted assurance that the savings would be passed on to the buyers of the units. Dean Pierce will provide the Commission with the requested information.
Selectboard Budget for Update of Village Plan
Dean Pierce reported there is $8,000 in certified local government funds that can be used to update the village plan. A public hearing to reaffirm the village plan is needed.
Chapter 117 Planning Law Changes
The Planning Commission may meet with the Zoning Board on February 7th to review and discuss planning/zoning law changes (Ch. 117).
5. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Claude LaPierre, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (6-0); motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SHELBURNE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
JANUARY 13, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Peterson (Chairman); Reg Gignoux, Hilda White, Kay Kraushaar, Tucker Holland, Claude LaPierre, Fred Schmidt.
STAFF PRESENT: Dean Pierce, Town Planner.
OTHERS PRESENT: Marge Sharp, Ken Albert, Gail Albert, Victor Meilleur, Randy Meilleur, Mike Burke, Roger Guillemette, Gerry Guillemette, Joanne Guillemette, Marguerite Guillemette Meunier, Bernard Guillemette, Thea Platt, Norman and Jenifer Burnett, Oda Hubbard, Mike Anderson, Deane Wang, Carolyn “Becky” Wang, Chris Davis, Halina Dooley, Cheryl Robbins-Dooley, Dave Marshall.
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes (12/9/04)
2. Presentation by Representatives of the Shelburne School Board
3. Final Plan Review, Randall, Arlene, Jamie Fisher, 38 Webster Lane (SUB03-11)
4. Site Plan Review Amendment, Alan Clayton/Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate), 40 Shelburne Shopping Park (SP96-8R1)
5. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Meach Cove Real Estate Trust/Kenneth Albert, west side Route 7 and south side Bostwick Road (SUB04-09)
6. Sketch Plan Review Continuance, Ernest Auclair Family Trust/Michael Anderson, 61 Pond Road (SUB04-10)
7. Other Business, Correspondence
8. Adjournment
1. CALL TO ORDER and APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2004
MOTION by Hilda White, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the 12/9/04 minutes with the following corrections:
Globally correct the spelling of “Linda Bribnau”;
Page 1, Bourgea application, Applicant Comments, 2nd line – change “subdivision” to “re-subdivision”.
VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
2. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SHELBURNE SCHOOL BOARD
Postponed to a future date.
3. FINAL PLAN REVIEW, RANDALL, ARLENE & JAMIE FISHER, 38 WEBSTER LANE (SUB03-11)
Dave Marshall appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Marshall reviewed the site plan, noting the storm water and sediment and erosion control plans have been submitted. Water service to Lot #3A is shown. The entryway to the parcel has been consolidated to one. A recreation path easement is shown (a bump out has been provided). A new Stop sign is shown. Any remaining outstanding engineering issues will be addressed and the required information submitted to the Town Engineer. There will be signs placed with street addresses in response to the Fire Chief’s concern.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05.
Rick Peterson asked about wells serving the homes. Dave Marshall explained Lot #3A will be served by town water, but the existing houses are on wells. Mr. Marshall assured there will be one additional water line for one of the three lots. Reg Gignoux referred to the zoning regulations related to lot size and water service (50,000 s.f. lot for public water/sewer; 100,000 s.f. lot for on-site water). Dave Marshall replied to satisfy the regulations, the spare water line will serve Lot 3B (Jamie Fisher property).
Rick Peterson asked about the path easement crossing Webster Lane in a zigzag manner. Dave Marshall explained the layout provides flexibility to the town to avoid queuing conflicts with vehicles. If the southern line goes along the right-of-way, then the rec path could parallel this. Mr. Marshall stated the path layout could be straightened if needed. Fred Schmidt asked about the bike trail to be located on the southern boundary of the property. Mr. Marshall referred to the study that identified a corridor for a future rec path, adding that the Fisher family is in support of the path and willing to provide an easement on their property.
Rick Peterson questioned if the Stop sign would be enforceable without an ordinance. There was discussion of having the Selectboard include the Stop sign in the ordinance or allowing the Selectboard to decide if and when a Stop sign is needed on Webster Lane.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Marge Sharp asked who has the right of way, a bicyclist on the pathway or a car coming down the driveway. The answer was not known.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Final Plan, Subdivision, 38 Webster Lane, Fisher (SUB03-11)
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to grant final plan approval to Randall and Arlene Fisher for an amendment to a previously approved subdivision as shown on the plans presented and with the following conditions and submittals required for final plat review:
1. Prior to the recording of a mylar, plans shall be revised to address any unresolved concerns identified by the Town’s consulting engineer, Jonathan Ashley, P.E., in the letter dated 1/4/05.
2. Prior to filing a mylar, the applicant shall submit finalized and executed legal documents, revised to the satisfaction of the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
3. All work related to public utilities shall be complete consistent with the Town’ Public Works specifications.
4. To comply with zoning regulations for minimum lot size, Lot #3 shall be served by the second available water line available in the subdivision.
5. Unless otherwise indicated by Amy Bell, VTrans Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Coordinator, or John Kaplan, VTrans, the 10’ wide path easement as it crosses Webster Lane shall be straightened.
6. Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office; this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions.
VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
4. SITE PLAN REVIEW AMENDMENT, ALAN CLAYTON/CHERYL ROBBINS-DOOLEY (dba Blackflower Chocolate), 40 SHELBURNE SHOPPING PARK (SP96-8R1)
Cheryl Robbins-Dooley appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Ms. Robbins-Dooley explained she leases space in a building owned by Alan Clayton in the Shelburne Shopping Park for the creation and retail sale of hand-made artesian designed chocolates. The Zoning Board determined three parking spaces will be needed based on the retail square footage and the manufacturing area. Ms. Robbins-Dooley said only she will be making the chocolates by hand using molds so there is not a manufacturing operation, and no more than two to three people coming to the shop at once are anticipated for the retail sales portion of the business.
Rick Peterson mentioned the change in use (i.e. retail and manufacturing) triggered site plan review which includes review of the parking for the site.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce asked if the amount of parking available to the applicant is outlined in the lease for the building. Ms. Robbins-Dooley stated parking spaces (number, location) is not specified in the lease with Mr. Clayton. Mr. Pierce pointed out the Planning Commission can decide the number of parking spaces reasonable for the site and the use. There was discussion of the parking available for the existing uses in the park. There was also mention of the storage of materials from the hardware store on the property. The Planning Commission felt the matter should be resolved by the parties on the site and is not part of Ms. Robbins-Dooley site plan review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Site Plan Review Amendment, Change of Use, 40 Shelburne Shopping Park, Clayton/Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate)
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Hilda White, to grant approval to Alan Clayton/Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate) for a site plan amendment at 40 Shelburne Shopping Park consistent with the plan submitted and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant(s) shall document the total number of parking spaces available to the user of the unit.
2. The applicant, Cheryl Robbins-Dooley (dba Blackflower Chocolate) shall secure a minimum of three parking spaces associated with the approved use.
3. Within 60 days of this approval, the property owner shall record a “Memorandum of Municipal Action” with the Shelburne Town Clerk’s office; this document will notify future property owners of the approval and conditions.
VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
5. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, MEACH COVE REAL ESTATE TRUST/KENNETH ALBERT, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 7 & SOUTH SIDE OF BOSTWICK ROAD (SUB04-09)
Ken Albert appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mr. Albert reviewed the vineyard and winery operation. Five acres of cold hardy grapes will be planted yielding 20 tons of grape juice for wine. The building will have two wings: 40’x 70’ processing building and 30’x 40’ building for tasting, sales, and some storage. The applicant noted the architect is still working on the design and orientation on the site of the building. The driveway configuration will respond to the orientation of the building. The site is opposite the northern entry to Trudy’s farmstand. Sight distance will be confirmed though it appears at 1,000’ a car disappears from view. Mr. Albert emphasized the desire to optimize safety. Regarding paths, there will be a path on the perimeter of the plantings (mowed walkway in the meadow; no gravel or construction). Paths in the new growth woods to the west are being investigated (some brush will be removed). Mr. Albert indicated willingness to discuss connecting the paths with other paths in town.
Mr. Albert paraphrased his letter arguing the winery is an agricultural/farming operation. The operation includes growing grapes, harvesting, making wine. Additional grapes will be imported from a vineyard in Benson, Vermont. Current production is 900 cases of wine. The goal is 5,000 cases of wine. Shelburne Vineyards was established in 1998 with three acres of grapes. A long term lease with Meach Trust for the acreage has been executed. Over 50% of the wine produced is from the Shelburne vineyards (two sites). Weather did have an impact on production this past year. Organic certification has been received. In the opinion of the Environmental Board (Act 250), Shelburne vineyard meets the definition of farming so an Act 250 permit is not necessary. The vineyard also meets the definition of state law for a farming operation. A letter has been sent to the Shelburne Zoning Coordinator for an interpretation of Shelburne’s bylaws with regard to definition of the operation.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce noted the Federal Agriculture Department’s opinion is the operation would not qualify for a 4495 exemption (agriculture). There was agreement determination of use from the Shelburne Zoning Coordinator is needed before the application can proceed. Dean Pierce also suggested a traffic engineer review sight distances.
Fred Schmidt felt the application is in total character with what the town is trying to do with the town plan: preserves the gateway to the village, produces and promotes a local product, meshes uses (manufacturing and retail sales), integrates trails and paths, has organic certification on the product, fits with the Meach Cove Trust plan to foster local agricultural activity. The Planning Commission concurred the concept is what the Commission is interested in seeing in the town.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Sketch Plan, Subdivision, Route 7/Bostwick Road, Meach Cove/Ken Albert (SUB04-09)
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Kay Kraushaar, to classify the sketch plan submitted by Kenneth Albert/Meach Cove Trust as a minor subdivision. VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
MOTION by Tucker Holland, SECOND by Fred Schmidt, to approve the sketch plan submitted by Kenneth Albert/Meach Cove Trust subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to filing an application for final plan approval, the applicant shall seek an opinion from the Zoning Coordinator regarding the nature of the proposed uses.
2. In the event the Zoning Coordinator or Zoning Board determines the project involves uses other than agriculture or one/two family residences, any final plan application shall be accompanied by an application for site plan approval and all required plans and supporting materials.
3. Any final plan application shall include materials addressing concerns identified by Rick Lewis of the Water Department and Craig Wooster of the Shelburne Fire Department.
4. Any final plan application shall include a detailed site plan prepared by a professional engineer or licensed design professional including details on the design of the road and parking.
5. Any final plan application shall include evidence that the access has been/will be approved by VTrans which has jurisdiction over US Route 7.
VOTING: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
6. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW CONTINUANCE, ERNEST AUCLAIR FAMILY TRUST/MICHAEL ANDERSON, 61 POND ROAD (SUB04-10)
Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre recused themselves. Reg Gignoux assumed the duties of Chairman. Mike Burke appeared on behalf of the application.
APPLICANT COMMENTS
Mike Burke reviewed the site plan showing the east-west crossover road (60’ right-of-way) which accesses lots #4, #5, #6. The right-of-way avoids the wetlands as known presently. Mr. Burke reviewed the building envelopes on lots #1, #2, #3, and the Shelburne/St. George town line. There are seven acres in the Town of St. George (the acreage is adjacent to Route 116). The St. George Development Review Board approved the seven acres as a lot. Mr. Burke stated a 41 acre lot will be dedicated to conservation easement with third party ownership (discussions are on-going with Vermont Land Trust). There is an agricultural easement on a significant portion of lot #3, and setbacks (no cut zones) to protect the stream and wetlands on the property. There is a forest management area on lots #3 and #6. Access will be from Route 116. Sight distance appears to be adequate. VTrans approval is needed for a curb cut. It appears the project will have enough impervious surface to need a state storm water permit. The east-west road has a wetlands crossing and there is a wetlands complex on either side of the access from Route 116 so a CUD (Conditional Use Determination) will be needed. A community waste water system in the vicinity of lot #6 and lot #4 is proposed. Further investigation is needed. Regarding the town line determination, Mr. Burke felt his firm can get close to determining the property line, but can not definitively do so. The final determination of the line may have to be made by the Legislature if necessary.
Hilda White asked about the fire pond. Mr. Burke stated the pond will be located in an area with a high probability of intercepting ground water. The pond will likely be by the wetlands. A permit will be necessary for the ponds. Other options include a manmade structure filled with water, but this may not be reliable.
Reg Gignoux asked if the width of the right-of-way has been approved by the Town of St. George. Mike Burke replied the matter need to be clarified with St. George.
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Commission received a written staff report on the application, dated 1/13/05. Dean Pierce observed if the land in St. George becomes a lot, it is likely the owners would want to access the property via the same curb cut as the proposed development. Mr. Pierce asked about addressing the concern regarding potential conflicts between residents and the Guillemette property (right to farm). Development must be compatible with surrounding properties, stated Mr. Pierce. Mike Burke confirmed right to farm language could be part of the deed language so the property owners are well informed there is a working farm nearby (reasonable operating conditions). Hilda White suggested a provision be added saying if a homeowner files a lawsuit against the farmer and loses the case, then the loser pays the legal bills for both parties. Dean Pierce will further investigate the right to farm issue with the Town Attorney.
Fred Schmidt commented what is compatible with a neighborhood changes over time. Adding six or seven houses to the area will change the area to suburban, not a rural farm. Mr. Schmidt also mentioned the concern of the number of school children generated by the new development. Mike Burke stated the “guesstimate” is one student per household. The houses will be high end, four bedroom homes, but research has shown there are not many children. Also, there is a declining school population in Chittenden County, stated Mr. Burke. Fred Schmidt noted there are a significant number of students in private school in Shelburne, and if the economy declines, these students could end up in the public school system which would have an impact. There was further discussion of the number of school children generated by developments, households without children, and Shelburne being a retirement destination.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Oda Hubbard asked and was shown the locations of the house lots on the site plan. Ms. Hubbard pointed out the Maeck farm development has houses clustered on an “island” with agricultural land surrounding them, but there are no farm buildings or operations going on by the houses.
Bernie Guillemette expressed concern a good lawyer could shred even the strongest right to farm language. Joanne Guillemette stated the concern is more than the smell, noise, activity of the farm, but also the safety of children. Children from the new houses will likely go exploring and could get hurt on the farm. There is a one million gallon manure pit by the barn which looks like a big mud pit (very inviting to children who are not educated to the hazards on a farm). The manure pit is surrounded by five strands of barbed wire only. Also, some of the farm equipment can be started without a key or pulled out of gear and roll.
Norman Burnett, Rocky Ridge Golf Course, expressed concern about stray golf balls from Hole #15 possibly reaching the house on lot #1. Mr. Burnett said he does not have $70,000 to install a huge fence like the one at the golf range in Williston. It was noted a house built on the St. George property could also be subject to stray golf balls.
Halina Dooley spoke in support of the Guillemettes, local farmers, and open space. Ms. Dooley stated the purchasers of the proposed houses will likely have the money and power to potentially squeeze out the farm.
Gerry Guillemette stated the development presents an undue hardship on the farmer. The Guillemette family made an investment in the barn and purchased other land to make the farm work. It is devastating to see the construction, noting the effort by the Gentrys to save the land around the pond and that the only difference in this case is there is a working farm. Mr. Guillemette also agreed with the statements about children exploring and potential for getting hurt on the farm. The Planning Commission was urged to give the proposal serious thought because of the impact on the Guillemette family. If the Planning Commission wants to see housing developments, cautioned Gerry Guillemette, there could be more built on the land across the street. Mr. Guillemette asked about plans for the land to the south. Reg Gignoux explained if the preliminary plan is approved, there are a number of conditions that will address access to land to the south. The three-step review process was explained. Gerry Guillemette expressed concern about clearly identifying the property and the plans for all the land.
Thea Platt expressed concern about any potential lawsuits brought against the Guillemette family, adding the development is not a good solution.
Margaret Guillemette Meunier echoed the previous comments, adding the disruption never stops, first the lawsuit, then the court, then Superior Court, then Supreme Court, and on and on.
Roger Guillemette pointed out it appears two houses are proposed to be built on open land, not back in the woods. Mr. Guillemette felt the matter will boil down to a lawsuit. Mr. Guillemette also mentioned the issue of water for fire protection (fire pond is needed).
Becky Wang, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, said she has not yet done a full review of the proposal, but felt having the woods to the west under conservation is good. A conservation easement to preserve the wildlife corridor is necessary. Working with the Land Trust regarding the farm land is a good approach, but it is not certain having the farm equipment cross the driveway to access the farmland will work. The farm easement should be with the Land Trust. Ms. Wang suggested a wildlife inventory be done, especially in the middle portion of the parcel.
Ken Albert pointed out the development is proposed in the one place where there is a functioning farm in Shelburne, and it may be possible the regulations address impact on adjacent operations.
Bernie Guillemette stated 69 farms in Vermont ceased operation in 2004. There are only 1,295 operating farms remaining in the entire state. Mr. Guillemette stated above and beyond the land owned by his family farm, additional land is leased for crops. According to the Farm Service Agency crop report, the Guillemette farm leases 415 acres located on Dorset Street, Route 116, and Brownell Road. If the farming operation can not continue, then there is no need for this additional land and it will likely be converted by the owners to housing. The Planning Commission needs to consider this, urged Mr. Guillemette. It was mentioned there are other area farmers in the same position (i.e. considering subdividing their land for development).
There was discussion of the level of access to the property relative to the current proposal. It was clarified the Planning Commission has the right to understand the level of access (e.g. master plan for the entire parcel). Dean Pierce will check with the Town Attorney on the matter of two parcels with the same owner being connected by a right-of-way and whether the Planning Commission can request a master plan for all the land (both parcels). Mr. Pierce suggested a condition of approval that the applicant’s attorney provide an opinion on the matter, and the Town Attorney will react to the opinion.
Tucker Holland thanked everyone for their thoughtful comments, opining the purpose of the Planning Commission is to create a peaceful coexistence of neighbors. Mr. Holland acknowledged the applicant putting thoughtfulness in the siting of the houses, but there needs to be no uncertainty that those moving in know what is going on in the neighborhood and that the operation has been going on for generations and will continue. It would be nice to find a compromise to have a peaceful coexistence with the neighbors, stated Mr. Holland.
Hilda White asked about VAST trail on the site plan being permanent. Reg Gignoux stated the trail is voluntary. Dean Pierce explained the intent was if there is a trail, show it on the site plan as well as an alternate location if necessary.
There were no further comments.
DELIBERATION/DECISION
Sketch Plan, Subdivision, 61 Pond Road, Auclair/Anderson (SUB04-10)
MOTION by Fred Schmidt, SECOND by Tucker Holland, to approve the sketch plan submitted by Michael Anderson/Ernest Auclair Trust subject to the following conditions:
1. The location of the property relative to the boundaries of all adjoining properties shall be established by a licensed surveyor prior to the filing of any preliminary plan application; all plans submitted with applications filed with the Town of Shelburne shall depict the boundary of the property as it exists within the Town of Shelburne.
2. Documentation regarding the Town of St. George’s approval of or alternatively lack of jurisdiction over the easterly access drive shall be provided as part of any preliminary plan application.
3. The applicant shall provide evidence that any access intersecting Vermont Route 116 has been or likely will be approved by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) as part of any preliminary plan application.
4. Information regarding traffic safety including information addressing the adequacy of stopping sight distances shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application.
5. Information regarding whether or not the State of Vermont is likely to issue a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) for an east-west oriented access road shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application; if the information indicates that the State has or likely would approve a CUD, the plans shall depict the location of a potential east-west oriented access road.
6. Information documenting the applicant’s efforts to avoid wetlands and screen proposed house sites from view from the road and farm shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application.
7. Any preliminary plan application shall contain information demonstrating how the propose development would be compatible with surrounding properties; this information which may include draft legal documents incorporating “Right to Farm” language shall address topics such as noise, odors, lighting, trespass, behavior of domestic animals, and impact of pests.
8. A legal memorandum describing the nature of the “prescribed right” of way the Auclairs enjoy across the Lewis Trust land and Peet lands shall be developed and provided as part of any preliminary plan application.
9. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict a proposed bicycle and pedestrian easement along the northern boundary of the property.
10. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict the location of the existing VAST trail on the property as well as the location of at least one proposed re-routing of the VAST trail.
11. Plans submitted with any preliminary plan application shall depict the location including access of a fire pond or cistern with a minimum of 50,000 gallons.
12. The application shall demonstrate the ongoing involvement in the project of one or more qualified conservation organizations to which conservation and agricultural easements would be transferred.
13. The application shall include all other required information identified in the Preliminary Plan Checklist contained within the Town of Shelburne Subdivision Procedures and Application.
VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.
MOTION by Kay Kraushaar, SECOND by Hilda White, to classify the sketch plan submitted by Michael Anderson/Ernest Auclair Trust as a major subdivision. VOTING: unanimous (5-0); motion carried.
Rick Peterson and Claude LaPierre returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson resumed the duties of Chairman.
7. OTHER BUSINESS, CORRESPONDENCE
School Board Presentation
Postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting.
Anticipated Applications
-Subdivision with cluster for six new residents and existing house
-Dissolving of PUD for Vermont Teddy Bear.
Zoning Changes
The Planning Commission received a letter for possible zoning changes regarding exceptions to setbacks. Materials were received for the next Town Plan update work session on 1/20/05. A handout was provided to the Planning Commission regarding the seminar on changes to state zoning requirements.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Reg Gignoux, SECOND by Hilda White, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: unanimous (7-0); motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by M.E.Riordan, Recording Secretary.
|
