MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 14, 2005, COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Present: William Jakubowski, chairman; Kevin Bubriski, vice-chairman; Chris Williams; Bill Pennebaker; David Mance; Andrew Knafel; and Mark Young.
Others Present: Zoning Administrator Tony Zazzaro; Joseph Mazzola; B.J. Mazzola; Edward Corey; Lucinda Gregory; Barbara Buxbaum; Shane Becker; Arthur Whitman; Richard Mattison; Karen Mellinger, Select Board Member; and Dr. Brock T. Ketcham.
Call to Order: Mr. Jakubowski called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Old Business: Mr. Jakubowski mentioned a site visit to the Richard Mattison property, # 04-6745. Mr. Mance recused himself because he has done work for Mr. Mattison. Mr. Mance then went to the audience.
Ø Mr. Mattison then proceeded to approach the table with plans of the four original buildings on the lot, with proposed extensions to the north end of the property. In question in the last meeting was the line of pine trees that would be taken out of the site where the second proposed building is going. The line of the fencing came up in question, which Mr. Mance addressed. The other issue was to put up a buffer to replace the tree line already in existence, not only in back of the proposed building, but along the length of the brook as well. The trees are classified as white cedar; however, there are already trees existing. Mr. Mattison also notes that once the pines are taken out, they can’t be replaced.
Ø Mr. Young asked Mr. Mattison to describe the tree species in more detail. Mr. Mattison then passed out pictures of the trees he planned to plant.
Ø Mr. Knafel said that those types of trees are only there for four months at the most, and when they grow they can obstruct views. He says the rural character of Mr. Mattison’s property is to be preserved, and that the board must work around its previous decisions. Mr. Knafel also says that he is not comfortable with the trees growing 20 feet or more to obstruct the views.
Ø Mr. Bubriski commented that he has qualms about the site being adequate for Mr. Mattison’s needs, but also comments that Mr. Mattison’s business is growing rapidly.
Ø Mr. Mattison talked about the visual character of the property when discussing the proposal. Mr. Knafel mentioned that when the property is messed around with, it detracts from the view. Mr. Jakubowski said that he is not sure if the board can allow Mr. Mattison to keep trees on his property.
Ø Mr. Jakubowski also mentioned that there are labor-industry related issues concerning the expansion of Mr. Mattison’s property. Concerning the northeastern-most building—can we spread it apart, avoiding the destruction of trees, and move it a couple of hundred feet back? This was the question raised.
Ø Mr. Williams asked a question to the board, and Mr. Mattison explained that he has already taken out five trees to make the property more even for his expansion. Mr. Pennebaker was puzzled about the position of fencing, and recommended to Mr. Mance to check the position in case the buffer is questioned; otherwise, the town could be in trouble with the state. He also says that spacing is tight if the fence is to be installed. Mr. Pennebaker also asked: Is there another species of tree that would be a better choice to maintain a scenic shielding?
Ø Mr. Knafel said that an evergreen could do, since in the winter some shielding would be needed on the property. Mr. Pennebaker said that it is inevitable that the existing trees will have to come down if the project does move forward. Mr. Williams says that there is room for moving an existing building, so that the trees don’t have to come down.
Ø Mr. Mattison explained that he wanted a new building in line with the existing building. He mentioned that if he wanted to maintain the buffer, some things have to be replaced, but later put back. Mr. Jakubowski says at the moment, there has to be a way to save the majority of those trees. Mr. Jakubowski recommended that another formal site visit take place at the Mattison property before the next meeting, on June 28th, at 6:00 p.m.
Ø Mr. Ed Corey made a comment from the audience and said that Mr. Mattison has done a good job in trying to help the town grow while maintaining its rural character.
Mr. Mattison went on to comment that taxes are a big issue, and that those on his property have gone up to about $6,000 per year. He says he may or may not build the additions, depending on those issues that are solved or not solved. The property is one of high-maintenance and he takes it very seriously.
A motion to adjourn the meeting for the next site visit was made by Mr. Jakubowski, and seconded by Mr. Pennebaker. The motion passed 7-0-0.
At this time Mr. Mance returned to the board table.
Mr. Shane Becker: Discussing some screening on the south line of his property, just north of the Chocolate Barn.
Ø Mr. Mance mentioned that there was an issue with parking a trailer and a truck behind the Becker house, as well as screening/fencing in the area, which Mr. Pennebaker added to.
Ø Mrs. Buxbaum asked if the neighbors have any rights to hear the issues being discussed this evening. Mr. Jakubowski mentioned that they were entitled to hear the issues on the floor.
Ø Mr. Mance explained to Mr. Becker that because he is using the property for commercial use, he needed a site permit, which he could obtain from Mr. Zazzaro. Mr. Becker had a permit to put up a garage which he operates, and Mr. Mance explained that they are trying to conclude the process at this meeting.
Ø At the last board meeting, they discussed issues with parking and backing, trying to make sure that nothing was backed onto Route 7A for safety concerns. Tonight is the public hearing, and if the audience wishes to comment, they are more than welcome to.
Ø Mr. Jakubowski says that Mr. Becker does not have anything new to add.
Ø Dr. Ketcham, who is Mr. Becker’s neighbor on the north side of 7A, commented that construction has been going on in the garage, and he can hear it during evening hours. He had a question for the board, which was: Is the board comfortable that Mr. Becker is operating a landscape retail business?
Ø Mr. Mance explained to Dr. Ketcham that the business was created to be a legitimate retail business. Dr. Ketcham added that he believed the business is neither retail nor landscaping, and that it is just a place for storing heavy equipment. He thought that the approval was for a residential garage. Mr. Jakubowski referred to page 98 of the zoning manual, 36-09. He says the zoning board granted the permit on May 13, 1998, which took place immediately after hours, and granted a conditional use permit to Mr. Becker for the purpose of selling retail landscaping products.
Ø Mrs. Gregory, the proprietor of The Chocolate Barn, said that Mr. Becker gave up his license to retail the equipment, and that she now knows the heavy equipment has been sitting there. The problem is that the garage is obstructing the view in her yard, but in the meantime it has cost her thousands of dollars in order to make her yard livable. What bothers her is that Mr. Becker’s trailer has also been blocking her view for the last two to three years. Mr. Mance then asked Mr. Becker what kind of equipment he is storing outside. Mr. Becker said that he is storing the equipment inside now. Mr. Mance further commented that he was of the understanding that all the manufacturing of products was to take place indoors.
Ø Mr. Pennebaker said that there is a conflict in the section concerning the manufacturing of retail equipment, titled Appendix A. Mr. Becker said that if he fences everything in he won’t be able to get out of his property. Mr. Jakubowski asked if this issue should even be before the zoning board, who would be able to handle the matter better than the planning board.
Ø Mrs. Gregory says that the equipment can be seen both from her house and Dr. Ketcham’s house, and Mr. Pennebaker says that there is always equipment that can be seen from the road.
Ø Mr. Knafel commented that Mr. Becker is doing a nice job in maintaining the property; however, the concerns of the neighbors, as far as the site plan goes, the issue of the exposed equipment can be addressed. Mr. Pennebaker says that he would be in favor of trying to have the equipment hidden.
Ø Mrs. Gregory said that she appreciates Mr. Becker constructing a fence and that he is doing a nice job with it. However, she said that the garage is always in her face in her backyard, which she uses a lot. She said that it hasn’t been easy living with the garage. Mrs. Gregory also commented that it will be much more helpful if the garage is completed soon.
Ø Dr. Ketcham adds that Mr. Becker has a right to do his business. Issues of concern to him are screening and operating during the hours specified within the permit. He has had to have his land resurveyed, and asks whether Mr. Becker would consider a forklift to make the operation more efficient. Mr. Jakubowski asked Dr. Ketcham whether all 508 feet of the property can be screened. Dr. Ketcham says that he has talked to Mrs. Becker and their son on occasion concerning the issues, and that noise is a major issue with him.
Ø Mr. Pennebaker added that he would like to know where the board stands on visibility and equipment, and whether litigation will be an issue. Mrs. Gregory says that the issue of noise has been an issue with her, but not to the extent of Dr. Ketcham’s; she went on to explain that because he is a medical doctor, Dr. Ketcham needs to have some peace and quiet in order to rest in case he is on call.
Ø At this point, Mr. Williams called a matter of procedure: It is an issue in the RR-80 district and that the board should not approve Mr. Becker’s permit. Mr. Jakubowski says that it looks like Mr. Zazzaro will have to notify the zoning board about the issue of Mr. Becker’s property. Mr. Jakubowski says that they will be open to having a joint meeting if necessary. Mr. Williams also notes that the town has to follow its regulations and that the issue cannot be a hassle in future. Mr. Williams also says that he would be reluctant to accept it because there are also issues with draining, as well as those with the septic system. Mr. Becker could possibly get in trouble if the issues are not addressed.
Ø Dr. Ketcham then approached the table to discuss property issues with Mr. Becker.
A motion to continue discussion into the next available meeting was made by Mr. Mance, and seconded by Mr. Jakubowski. The motion passed 7-0-0.
Arthur Whitman approached the table to discuss the issue of an oil tank on his property. The oil tank is still on his property because a planned renovation/expansion project has been put off for a year. Construction was supposed to start last fall but it didn’t happen; he estimated that it will probably take place this coming fall. At this time, Mr. Whitman cannot move the tank.
Ø Mr. Knafel said that he does not see the tank as being a problem. Mr. Whitman says that the tank complies with all state regulations. Mr. Young asked if the tank was in the same location, and Mr. Mance said that it is still in the exact same location.
Ø Mr. Mance commented that if the project commences, the buildings will still go up; however, if the excavating begins, then the oil tank will have to move. Mr. Whitman said that construction will begin on the warehouse in September. Mr. Jakubowski commented that there have been delays.
Ø Mr. Corey commented from the audience that the fuel tank is a problem and should be removed before construction begins. He said that the fuel tank has to removed as soon as possible and that he is opposed to any more extensions. Mr. Bubriski then asked Mr. Whitman if he has the permits, and Mr. Whitman replied he does. He also added that he has no say whatsoever about the permits and that he does not know when the tank is going to be moved.
Ø Mrs. Mellinger asked Mr. Whitman if he was going to incur additional costs if the tank was removed, and Mr. Whitman replied yes (barely audible). Mr. Whitman explained that the fuel tank will probably be bought back by the original owner and he will get a larger tank. Mr. Corey then asked where the tank is being moved to, and Mr. Whitman said that it will be moved to another adjacent location in North Bennington.
A motion was made by Mr. Mance to grant an extension for the removal of the fuel tank to 9/30/2005, and it was seconded by Mr. Knafel. The motion passed 6-0-1.
Mr. Joe Mazzola approached the table and presented his application, which is to have more customer cars parked on his auto-body property.
Ø Mr. Zazzaro noted that he (Mr. Mazzola) has a problem in the wintertime where everybody can’t find a place to park their cars at the shop. Mr. Jakubowski said that the amended site plan has to go back to the zoning board.
Ø Mr. Mazzola noted that customer parking for cars that are being worked on are a problem at his shop and that there should be more room for them. Mr. Jakubowski said that Mr. Mazzola’s fence should be extended on his property to create extra space for customer parking. Mr. Mazzola said that for over 15 years this has been an issue because he has fought with the board due to the septic system. He also claimed that Mr. Metcalfe from the Select Board wanted the cars to be seen in the front and not in back. Mr. Mazzola says that if he put his garage on the market now, nobody would buy it because of its many issues. Mr. Knafel asked Mr. Mazzola how many cars he needed on the lot. Mr. Mazzola says he has three tow trucks, his own personal vehicles and customers’ cars on the lot, including those that were involved in wrecks. Mr. Mazzola noted that no one can easily open a shop these days because of EPA regulations and other issues.
Ø Mr. Corey asked whether the southern end of Mr. Mazzola’s property can be used for parking, which he definitely needs. Mr. Jakubowski told Mr. Mazzola that extra cars are not eligible to park on the property, and also said that the business is not a “permitted use zone;” rather, it is simply a roadside business.
Ø Mr. Pennebaker asked Mr. Mazzola what the addition on his garage consisted of, and Mr. Mazzola replied that it already exists for the use of washing cars. Mr. Mazzola went on to say that he has been pushed around a lot and that he is willing to go to state officials if necessary. Mr. Pennebaker asked Mr. Jakubowski whether getting a permit for extra spaces is legal. Mr. Mance said that he would like to look at some of the old ordinances concerning extra space at auto repair shops.
Ø Mr. Jakubowski said that Mr. Mazzola’s shop has never been a “conforming use” shop. He also asked Mr. Mazzola if he is discarding his application to get more spaces. Mr. Mazzola then left the building.
Ø At this point, Mr. Corey commented that if Mr. Mazzola had a valid permit for his body shop, it cannot be taken away. He is applying for an amendment to his site plan. Mr. Jakubowski said that the board cannot approve a site plan for the business because it has to be taken care of by the zoning board. His site plan approves for the parking of so many cars on the property. Mr. Jakubowski also commented that he went into Mr. Mazzola’s shop in 2002 and apologized for comments he had made at a meeting earlier that year. Mr. Jakubowski also told Mr. Zazzaro that he has a problem with Mr. Mazzola accusing him of hounding him about the supposed expansion of his property.
Ø Mrs. Mellinger went on to raise the issue about a development review board in Shaftsbury. She asked: If we had a DRB, would it eliminate the need for citizens to go to planning or zoning boards?
Ø Mr. Knafel commented that there can be joint meetings; however, it’s up to Mr. Zazzaro to make that determination. Mrs. Mellinger asked if the board given any thought to a DRB? Mr. Mance explained that he had been thinking about it for the last five minutes. Mr. Mance also commented that the board has gotten broad on a few of the applications. Mr. Bubriski also commented that the town of Shaftsbury has also no way to address a noise issue, as noted in the Becker application.
Mr. Rex Burke, the regional planner for the town, then approached the table to discuss a proposed solid waste ordinance.
Ø Mr. Burke has created a draft outline for permanent zoning/solid waste facilities. The working draft was then handed to the board members for their perusal and possibly for debate. In the example involving the town of Rockingham, Mr. Burke noted that they were looking at the use of a landfill zone themselves. Mr. Burke then proceeded to read a portion of the introduction and commented on the various sections that made up the regulations concerning solid waste facilities. Mr. Burke also noted that for the next meeting, he could draft more sections of the regulations for the board’s perusal.
Ø Mr. Pennebaker commented that the intent of the drafted plan was not to spark an interest in creating solid waste facilities. Mr. Jakubowski said that Section 7.9.4 is very open to him right now, and Mr. Burke said that he can check the standards. Mr. Burke also commented that the proposed site has a 50-foot setback at the moment. Mr. Williams said that the issue of property valuation is best left to post-tax agreements. He also noted that the post-town agreement is specific to this situation, and he told Mr. Burke that he could go either way. Mr. Jakubowski said that the issue could possibly go to zoning as well.
Ø Mr. Pennebaker commented that Shaftsbury has a conditional use for a solid waste facility in a zoned property…he also says that the use could possibly be limited as well. Mr. Mance commented that talking about zoning in the shoes of an applicant, the more knowledge you have about the issue, the better your shot will be of gaining a permit to operate in that particular zone. Mr. Williams said that the state zoning administration is understaffed and that they can’t keep track of all the statutes that they are supposed to enforce.
10:32 p.m.- Mr. Zazzaro commented that he had nothing to report from an administrator’s point of view.
Mr. Jakubowski then presented the minutes of April 26, and a motion was made by Mr. Mance to approve, which was seconded by Mr. Bubriski and Mr. Young. The motion passed 7-0-0.
Mr. Mance moved to approve the minutes of May 10, and was seconded by Mr. Williams. The motion passed 7-0-0.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of May 24, and was seconded by Mr. Bubriski. The motion passed 7-0-0.
A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Mance, and was seconded by Mr. Pennebaker. The motion passed 7-0-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paolo S. Rosales
Recording Secretary