Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/20/2021DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 20 January 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Eiring ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; D. Marshall, J. Washburn/Shepard, S. McClellan, A. LaRosa, J. Messina, G. Cuchural, D. Cotter, P. Mazurak, S. Jones 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Cota explained the “Chat” function and the importance of signing in so as to be able to appeal a decision of the Board. Ms. Keene noted that several city committees have appointed liaisons to the DRB. These include: Mike Simoneau ……………….. Recreation and Parks Committee Ray Gonda ………………………. Natural Resources Conservation Committee Cathy Frank …………………….. Bike/Ped Committee 4. Presentation on Proposed TIF Bond for Garden Street by Kevin Dorn, City Manager: Mr. Dorn advised that the City Council has approved taking a question to the voters for a $4,000,000 TIF debt to complete Garden Street. He showed a photo indicating the project area. There would be infrastructure work between Healthy Living and Trader Joe’s and on the northerly portion to Midas Drive. Funding for the intersection improvement at White Street will happen later. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Dorn stressed that the project is entirely funded by TIF money and explained the nature of TIF financing. The difference between the taxes from the unimproved property and the improved property stays with South Burlington to pay for the infrastructure. Increase tax revenue from projects such as Allard Square, the Champlain Housing Trust Building, the Schenk houses on Hinesburg Road, and Healthy Living have contributed to paying for the increased infrastructure. There is no impact on the South Burlington tax payers from these projects or from the proposed Garden Street project. Mr. Dorn noted that the city also has a reserve fund in case revenues from these projects don’t come in as quickly as anticipated. Mr. Cota asked whether this is an approved TIF. Mr. Dorn said it is an existing TIF. The city must incur debt by March 2023, and they have 20 years in which to use those incremental funds. The city now has 17 of those 20 years remaining. Mr. Dorn added that the funding uses a very conservative model. The only properties being used in the model are those owned by South Burlington Realty, but there are other properties in the TIF district which could also fund the debt. Mr. Cota asked if the properties are all in the Form Based Code district. Mr. Dorn said they are; however, the Form Based Code area is larger than the TIF District. Mr. Wilking said this is exactly what TIF funding is for, and he fully supports it. Mr. Dorn agreed that roads are 100% TIF eligible. 5. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-41 of The Snyder Group, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development on 25.93 acres consisting of 18 single family dwellings, ten 2-family dwellings, three 3-unit multi- family dwellings, and an existing single family home. The amendment consists of changing the unit mix to twelve single family dwelling, thirteen 2-family dwellings, and three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and an existing single family home, and relocating the recreation path from off-street to on-street, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Staff advised that this application has been withdrawn. 6. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-01 of Lark-Inns, LP, to amend an existing planned unit development on 13.26 acres consisting of a 121 room hotel, an 84 room hotel, a 60 room hotel, a restaurant and a 3-unit multi-family building. The amendment consists of converting the 84 unit hotel to a 78 unit multi-family building, 1720 Shelburne Road: Mr. Cota noted that the 2 outstanding issues were landscaping and bicycle parking. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. McClellan said they have worked out the landscaping issue. Staff and the applicant are OK with a $6,500 landscaping bond. There will also be upgraded bike parking. Mr. McClellan said they will be going with pervious pavers, the details for which are provided on the engineering sheet. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-21-01. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 7. Remanded conditional use application #CU-18-12B of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit #CU-18-02 for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The application has been remanded due to changes in regulations governing accessory residential units. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet, increasing the height to fifteen feet, and increasing the size to 248 sq. ft., 30 Myers Court: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota said the Environmental Court sent this application back to the DRB because of the change in the law. Act 179 regulates accessory dwelling units. The question is whether this new legislation changes any decision by the DRB. Mr. LaRosa, representing Mr. Washburn, reviewed the history of the application including the original approval and appeal to the E-Board. He said the only remaining issue is height, and this was again appealed. In October, the state passed Act 179 which allows accessory units to not be any more restrictive than the main unit. Mr. LaRosa said they are requesting approval of the accessory structure as it was built. He said it is a permitted use, and the height limitation was invalidated by Act 179. Ms. Philibert said she recalled that when the DRB reviewed this, the regulations were clear and Mr. Washburn had violated them. Now that law has changed, and she questioned whether the DRB needs to issue a new decision. Ms. Keene said the law has changed, and that has invalidated the city’s regulations. The DRB has to decide what part of the regulations still stand. She noted that Act 179 says that the accessory unit can have the same regulations as the primary residence or be less DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 4 restrictive. Ms. Keene stressed that staff notes are prepared as if this application is for a single family dwelling. Mr. Cota suggested that the Board could ask the City Attorney what would be the best course of action. Mr. Langan said he has no “right” answer in his mind at this time. Mr. LaRosa said they are viewing this as a new application under the new law. It is a permitted use within the permitted space. Mr. Cota said the question is whether this is an “accessory dwelling” or a “single family” building. Ms. Keene said that she understands that Mr. LaRosa believes that only the portions of the bylaw that are more restrictive than a single family home are invalid. Staff interprets the language to mean that the structure should be reviewed as a single family dwelling. The City Attorney says it should be looked at as a single family dwelling. Mr. Wilking said he would go with what the City Attorney says. He felt the applicant is trying to get around this when he was the one who “screwed up” in the first place. Ms. Philibert agreed and said Mr. Washburn violated what was clear in the regulations. Mr. Behr said the Board has been asked to look at the project in light of the new law. There is a setback violation that was not an issue until the building was built illegally. He said this is a “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” situation. Mr. LaRosa said that when the project was originally permitted, there was a 7-foot setback. They are happy to meet that. It’s just a utility “bump out” and they can figure out how to do it. He acknowledged that Mr. Washburn screwed up and said they are trying to fix that. Mr. Behr asked what would the setback be for an accessory development unit if they came to the Board today with the new regulations. Ms. Keene said the original permit was for a 7-foot setback with a 12’9” height. That was violated when the building was built. They are coming in today with a building that is 18 feet high. Ms. Keene added that staff believes the 7 foot setback is null and void. Mr. LaRosa said they believe that was approved. Mr. Behr said that approval was built in violation. He said if there is a way to address the intent of the regulations, he was willing, but he now can’t Ms. Philibert said she believed the Board was being “played,” and this undermines the whole process. She wanted to hear from the neighbors. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 5 Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. If the law was in existence prior to 28 February 1974, staff feels the Board may grant additional side and rear setback waivers as a conditional use with additional criteria. Mr. LaRosa said he didn’t feel conditional use criteria apply. He added that the Board has to consider the impact of the new law before the Court will hear this. If you feel they don’t meet the criteria, the Board has to say so. Mr. Cota said the Board can hear from the public then continue to application in order to deliberate. Mr. Behr said he wanted to hear from the Legal Department as to the conditions under which the Board reviews this. Ms. Keene said the question is whether to consider it as a single family dwelling or whether only certain portions of the regulations were invalidated. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Palombo said she loves her neighborhood and its character. She was all for her neighbor building a tiny house. That is not what happened. There is a question of views and what you are looking at when you are in your backyard or at your windows. She felt the structure should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. As it is, their privacy in their backyard has been removed. She felt more people in the neighborhood might want to add this type of development, and she wanted the DRB to protect the neighborhood from this. Mr. Cota said the Planning Commission has to look at Act 179 and how it affects the LDRs to be sure everyone knows the rules. Ms. Palombo said it is also a question of what happens underneath the ground. She said they have spent a lot of money to be sure their have a dry basement. When earth gets moved, that gets impacted. Mr. Messina, representing the Cuchural family trust, said the E Court remanded this on procedural grounds. He felt the DRB has to determine what is now applicable. If the original law is determined to be applicable, the accessory dwelling must be subordinate to the single family dwelling. This one is not because it is taller. If the new law is applicable, then there is a setback violation. They can’t have it both ways. Mr. Cuchural felt this application should be viewed under the laws in effect at the time the building was build. He said “this monstrosity” has destroyed their privacy. It is taller than the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 6 main house. He said they would never have purchased their property if that building had been there when they bought their home. He also noted there is no screening between the properties. Mr. LaRosa said they are willing to discuss screening. Members agreed to continue the application to discuss the issue with the City Attorney. Mr. Cota moved to continue CU-18-12B until 3 March 2021. Ms. Philibert second. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-05 of Donald & Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development of two lots. The amendment is to subdivide Lot 2 (0.83 acres) into three lots of 0.28 acres each and develop a single family home on each, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Marshall noted that the applicant had been at the DRB for a 2-lot subdivision. At the time, they needed TDRs in order to get more lots. They are now back with a 3-lot subdivision of the eastern lot. Mr. Marshall showed an overhead view of the lot and also the 3 lots to the south. He noted that the lot to the south is narrower and still has a 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Marshall also noted that the LDRs state that homes should be no more than 25 feet back from the sidewalk. I this case, there is no sidewalk. Ms. Keene noted that this is an amendment to an existing PUD. It is not a new PUD. It already has restrictions on it. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff is questioning whether the homes would be oriented to the street and the placement of garages. Mr. Marshall said at this time the garages are not shown. However, they are easy to achieve and would be similar to the lots to the south. They will show this at the next stage of review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 7 b. Staff asked whether there will be public sewer and private water. Mr. Marshall said that is correct. There is not enough pressure for city water service. The homes will be served by private wells. Mr. Cota said they will need to show that there is enough water supply. Mr. Marshall said they can do this. c. Regarding wetland delineation, staff believes there will be an impact if wetlands are present. Mr. Marshall said they had received Interim Zoning approval from the city Council and discussed this issue at that time. The State wetland people do not identify a wetland issue. There are trees at the back of the lot, but they are not the result of a wetland. Mr. Marshall said they will provide that information again. Ms. Keene asked if it is OK with the applicant if the Stormwater Department people walk out there. Mr. Marshall said that is OK. d. The applicant must meet the culvert requirements as outlined by Public Works. Mr. Marshall said they are very agreeable to that. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota asked when the Board wants to deal with the water issue. Ms. Keene said this has always been an issue, and it has always been easy to get information regarding water adequacy. Staff still wants to see this ahead of time. No other issues were raised. Mr. Langan rejoined the Board. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-21-01 of The Granite Group to amend a previously approved plan for a 16,272 sq. ft. wholesale use building. The amendment consists of expanding the fenced outdoor storage area, 20 Gregory Drive: Both Mr. Cota and Mr. Wilking explained they relationship to the applicant and felt they had no conflict issues. The applicant had no issue with either of them serving on this application. Mr. Mazurak said the plan is to expand the outdoor storage area which is used mostly for large pipes. They also want to install a new overhead door on the back of the building. It would DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 8 open into the expanded storage area. This would be a safer situation than what exists now. They would modify the fence and put it back up again. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. More information is needed regarding the buffer connection to Potash Brook to determine if there is an adverse effect on flood storage. Mr. Mazurak said the site slopes away from the building. There is no detainment of stormwater; it is basically a mowed lawn where the extension will go. The slope is toward the wetland. There is an existing detainment system further down that handles runoff from the parking lot. Mr. Mazurak did not believe there is any adverse impact on the wetland. He did not expect there would be any extra sediment because all the areas are covered by pavement, riprap or grass. There is no open earth. They have done infiltration testing and can store stormwater in an impervious area. b. Mr. Mazurak said they are proposing proper construction methods that will protect the wetland area. They will not discharge sediment and will stabilize all surfaces. He asked whether a written statement to that effect can be a condition of approval. Ms. Keene asked abut specific functions of the wetland. Mr. Mazurak said the State has said it has o value or functions. Ms. Keene read from a 2016 letter from the State to that effect. The letter indicates the wetland has no function and values that the State regulates. Ms. Keene then enumerated the 10 functions of a wetland. Mr. Mazurak said he felt that riprapping will improve the situation. Mr. Wilking said he owns properties to the west and had dramatic problems with Potash Brook. He felt the applicant was heading into a “quagmire.” He suggested the applicant met with Dave Wheeler on the site. Mr. Mazurak said he would do that. c. Staff asked that the applicant demonstrate that the stormwater system would remain permeable. Mr. Mazurak said he talked with Dave Wheeler and he agreed that an area of permeable hardscape is standard. They also meet the State exemption because of the permeable area. Mr. Mazurak said this is a standard way to provide a pervious area. The area is ¾ inch crushed stone that will become pervious over time. He did not feel there would be much sediment running over the stones. If it did clog, the stones could be removed and replaced. Mr. Wilking asked if the applicant would be OK with a maintenance agreement. Mr. Mazurak said he would. d. Regarding lighting, staff asked if any lighting is proposed. Mr. Mazurak said they will not modify any parking lot lighting. They would like one downcasting fixture above the overhead door about 13 feet up. Mr. Cota said that should be added to the plan. Ms. Keene said it will be a condition. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 9 Mr. Wilking said he had no problem with the entire concept but he felt the applicant will run into issues regarding Potash Brook. He would like to hear comments from the Stormwater department before closing the hearing. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SP-21-01 until 3 March 2021. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 10. Minutes of 5 January 2021: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 January 2021 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Wilking abstaining. 11. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:22 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 2, 2021.