by Margery Sharp

A large audience was surprised on March 24 when Charlie Brush, a partner in the Green Mountain Development Group that had applied to develop Shelburnewood, read a letter advising the Shelburne Development Review Board (DRB) the Group was withdrawing its application.

The application has been before the board for almost five years and it has cost $1.3 million according to Brush.

"We've spent hours [on the 17 conditions that accompanied the acceptance of the preliminary plan]," said John Giebink, also a partner in the Green Mountain Group. "This project is...a prime example of what is described in the Town Plan."

Joan Lenes, one of Shelburne's representatives to the Vermont Legislature, said, "I would pose a vote of 'no confidence' of the leadership of the board. I suggest the chair [Peter Gibbs] step down."

Gwen Webster disagreed. "Everyone has been fair. To remove the chair is not right." Webster is a former member of the Town's zoning board of adjustment.

In tears, Vicki Carlson, mobile home park residents' president, said there's nothing else Shelburne can do for us. "We'll be homeless." The park was slated to close and the residents were to relocate into housing in the Shelburnewood complex.

At least 15 audience members spoke. Several asked individual board members to give reasons for tacking the 17 conditions on to the acceptance of the Preliminary Plan, which is the second step of three in the application process.

Three of the conditions singled out to satisfy acceptance of the Preliminary Plan were as follows: 1) design a second entrance to the development north of the proposed entrance 2) consider the impact on (wildlife) habitat on the slope areas surrounding the project 3) consider the impact of Shelburnwood on the character of the immediate area beyond the project property.

Gibbs answers questions
Regarding the first condition (#6) Chair Gibbs said "It was a safety [issue]." He added there could be changes ahead and one of the two (current) entrances goes through existing property on which there are eight businesses. He referred to the entrance adjacent to the former Shelburne Inn. "For me it is the safety of Shelburne residents. [The board] wrestled with the idea. If there is a problem on the north, the entrance could be south.

"How the entrance affects residents is of concern. You have to fit in to the mix of the zone. Some businesses may thrive, others may not." He added there would be an effect the project (might) have on residents living across the street.

Regarding the slopes surrounding the perimeter of the project: "I'm concerned about the fact the slopes are part of the river habitat."

He said the board was asked (by the developers) that some of the conditions be kicked over into the public hearing of the Final Plan. He added that the board also did not receive the design committee's complete report. Finally, he said he questioned the size of the building designed for the project's "Elderly Support Services Housing." "It's [too] big."
Gibbs acknowledged the developers faced funding deadlines and concluded, "I believe we've bent over backwards to get this project through."

He added the board was there to consider the evidence on the conditions.

John Giebink said, "We've spent hours on these notes." He referred to the written material he handed out to the board, audience members, and press that contained wording from the Town Plan, which he said the developers had followed.

Board member Anna Palmer told the developers, "You demonstrated flexibility. I supported it. Thank you for your work."

At 9 p.m. the board voted to close the public hearing on the application. The board members have 45 days to render a decision on the Preliminary Plan application.