Design Review Board Meeting

Present: Shirley Maiden, Brenda Madkour, John Watanabe, Perry Green, Devin Halligan; Tim Waker, Bob Bushee, Alan Benoit, John Watanabe, Gerry Deyo, John Griffin, Howard Kalinsky; Kaitlyn Filippi, Sydney Schiffman; also Planning DirectorIZoning Administrator Lee Krohn, and others per sign in sheet.

Motion Deyo to approve the minutes of 8/12/09; seconded by Griffin and OK by all.

Motion Bushee to approve the minutes of 9/9/09; seconded by Griffin and OK by all.

Design Review applications:

Church/Bonifanti, corner of Highland Ave & Spruce Street: Design Review OK with replacing existing, leaky green asphalt shingles with a dark green standing seam metal roof. Motion Bushee to approve as presented; seconded by Griffin and OK unanimously.

Crystal Palace, 58 Depot Street: Design Review OK with proposed signs for the new Gymboree store (individual, black aluminum pin-mounted letters, no lighting). Motion Benoit to approve as presented; seconded by Kalinsky and OK unanimously.

Perfect Wife Restaurant, 2594 Depot Street: Design Review OK with proposed minor roofline modification to cure snow/ice/leak problems; colors and materials will match existing, including slate roof. Motion Griffin to approve as presented; seconded by Kalinsky and OK unanimously.

Northshire Day School, 5484 Main Street: parties were sworn. Proposed is an amendment to prior design and zoning permits issued in 2004 for construction of the new school. Part of that application included an offer to restore the barn, recognized as a historic structure in the Vermont Survey of Historic Sites and Structures, for some form of active use. The school now believes the barn has deteriorated to a point of no return, and that the costs involved in stabilizing or restoring the barn are extraordinary and beyond its capacity. Apparently, architect Mark Wesner suggests it will cost $80,000 to stabilize the structure, approx. $300,000 to make it usable for storage, and nearly $1,000,000 to meet all codes for occupancy and use by children. At this time, the school has no plan for actual use of the structure, and given its mission of caring for and educating young children, not rehabilitating historic structures, they seek now to be relieved of the offer and permit condition so the building may be removed. They have asked several other entities, none of which accepted the offer of the building. Several architects were cited in the discussion. Concerns were raised about the loss of historic buildings, potential precedent (especially regarding offers made in prior permit conditions), and whether there were other options not yet explored. In order to understand the building better, a site visit was scheduled for Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 9:00 A.M.; applicant was asked to have a qualified expert at the site visit and/or the subsequent hearing which must be held according to the design review bylaw (removal of a historic structure requires a waiting period before a final decision). As also required, adjoining landowners and the Historical Society were notified.

Applicant was also asked to consult with Mike Connors, a local expert in moving buildings, to explore other options for moving and/or reuse of the barn. Since this will also go through Act 250, the Planning Commission reviewed this matter on Monday evening and by consensus, agreed not to oppose the application. With the site visit set, and no other matters to discuss until then, motion Benoit to recess the public hearing itself to the DRB's next meeting at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, October 14, 2009; seconded by Bushee and OK unanimously.

Upcoming schedule and other informational items were discussed. The Aubuchon road improvement project on Depot Street was discussed; the Board is quite concerned that no changes have yet been made to the Taconic Business Park road itself. Krohn is to notify Aubuchon that the work must either be completed by October 31, 2009, or they must apply for an amendment. Decisions were signed in the Savoy and Myerson/Chamber banner appeal cases. A recent proliferation of neon signs was discussed. The DRB and counsel agree that the Sign Ordinance prohibits these if they are in clear view of the road; on the other hand, the DRB agrees that if such a sign is on a back wall of a business, even if somewhat visible from outside, then it cannot be considered a regulated or prohibited sign. This will inevitably require a judgment call in individual cases as to how far back within a business is "far enough". Businesses with neon signs or other unpermitted signs, flags, etc will be notified.

With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by Lee Krohn