HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 26 MAY 2021
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a special meeting on Wednesday, 26
May 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, E. Eiring, D. Albrecht
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P.
Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Henning, M. Weiner, L. Kupferman, B. Armstrong, A.
Gill, E. Langfeldt, R. Dickinson, S. Homsted, S. & D. Mowat, C. Frank, J. & J. Gates, MW, T. Forest
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:
Ms. Philibert reminded members of the public to sign in if they wish to gain party status for a
potential appeal.
4. Continued preliminary plat application #SD‐20‐40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create a
planned unit development of 6 existing parcels currently developed with 3 single‐
family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of
135 homes in single family, duplex, and 3‐family dwellings on 9 lots totaling 21.8
acres, 19 commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single‐family
home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road:
Ms. Keene noted that the Board has looked at the technical review of the traffic study. One of
the recommendations of that study was to evaluate a roundabout. The applicant moved
forward with that study before hearing feedback from the Board. The Board still needs to
discuss if an evaluation is needed. If so, the Board needs to set the parameters of that study.
Ms. Keene said staff has no preference and asked members their thoughts. Members were
shown a plan with the 2 potential locations for a roundabout indicated at Kimball Ave./Old
Farm Road and Kimball Ave./IC Road.
Mr. Behr said he felt the applicant should complete the recommendations so the city gets the
best results in the long terms. He said he is not a huge fan of roundabouts but sees the value.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 2
He wanted to know the pros and cons, the cost, the impacts to traffic, and the potential impact
to other properties.
Mr. Albrecht asked how many years away the IC road is. Mr. Gill said it depends on the timing
of the buildings on those lots. They would do the rough start of the road right away, but it
would be a few years before anything like a road. Mr. Albrecht felt the Old Farm Rd. study
makes sense, but it is premature to think of the IC road. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is
seeking approval of the concept for the IC road.
Mr. Behr asked when Old Farm Road would be reconfigured. Mr. Gills said he believed year 2
of the project. Mr. Behr felt they should do both roads as the IC road will be working before
Old Farm Rd. is realigned. Ms. Philibert and Ms. Eiring were fine with that.
Ms. Philibert asked if the Board would look at that study before it closes preliminary plat. Ms.
Keene said staff was OK with either way.
Mr. Homsted said they have gotten a large picture, and one concern is the hill. The road
coming into the intersection would have to be flat. The roundabout would also have to go 30
to 40 feet into the project and will affect other intersections. Mr. Behr noted the Winooski
roundabout is on a hill. Mr. Homsted said that was a retrofit and standards were waived. He
didn’t think the South Burlington Dept. of Public Works will waive the standards. Mr. Gill
stressed the need for extensive regrading and said you ‘can’t just plug it in.’
Regarding zoning issues, Mr. Conner noted the C1‐LR District (limited retail) exists only at this
intersection and encourages general retail to serve nearby residential areas. Retail is limited to
a maximum 5000 sq. ft. gross floor area per tenant in a building of 15,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Conner said the city is excited to create this neighborhood here as it is a hub. He
encouraged the applicant to think how to arrange this to be a focal point. Think about how to
scale this based on what is adjacent to it. Think of some housing types that are not seen
frequently in the city: mixed use buildings, infill housing (e.g. similar to what was created at the
former Peking Duck in Winooski), 12‐plexes (as in South Village), infill 6‐plexes (as on Route
116). He stressed this does not mean less density, just how to arrange the land uses.
Mr. Conner noted there are 2 large blocks proposed in the C1‐LR district. The one to the east
has a nice green in the middle of it. He suggested considering what design features can be put
in the piece closes to Kimball/Kennedy to unify the neighborhood and to make it a destination
area. Ms. Keene cited street presence and parking as indicators. Mr. Conner urged the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 3
applicant to think of this as a gateway and to tuck parking in so it is not the dominant feature
and possibly also have as “unifying feature” (e.g. civic component) that draws people through.
Mr. Langfeldt said they are pretty aligned with what Mr. Conner said. Their vision has always
been a variety of styles, etc. They shifted a lot of density into the commercial area. It goes
from residential at Old Farm Road and gets more commercial as you go toward Kimball Ave.
Kimball/Kennedy is a focal point from their point of view.
Mr. Conner noted he had had conversations with people regarding the sidewalk/rec path on
Old Farm Road. That will not be part of tonight’s discussion so that staff can consider what they
have heard. Ms. Philibert felt that was fair and noted that means the application won’t be
closed tonight. Ms. Keene said the continuation date will be 6 July.
Staff comments continued to be reviewed as follows:
#32. This comment was just to get the conversation started.
#33. Mr. Gill asked for feedback. They have submitted schematics and there are some
challenges (e.g., the hill), particularly at Kimball/Kennedy. There is a very steep bank to the
project site. He showed a plan and identified the various sections and how the road goes into
the hillside. He also showed a graph of elevations and noted the bank steps up very quickly.
The lower floor of the building would be 21 feet above Kennedy Drive. The proposed parking
area is higher than the existing grade. They will have to landscape the slope to create the sense
people are talking about. Mr. Gill said their intent will be to figure out how to use the grading
to create an identity. Mr. Albrecht said the hill can be an advantage. He cited all the balconies
in New Orleans and said he can see something like a promenade at that corner, some sort of
public space, possibly a restaurant. Ms. Philibert agreed and said it is all about making that area
interesting.
Mr. Behr asked what uses are allowed in the big buildings. Mr. Conner said offices, medical
offices, service uses. He stressed that the scale of retail does not allow for a Target. There are
no required mixes. Residential is allowed at 12 per acre. Mr. Behr said this is an opportunity
for some vibrant mixed use so it doesn’t become a “ghost town” in the evening. He suggested
“playing off” the hillside, perhaps underground parking. Mr. Conner said that challenges can
present opportunities and encouraged the applicant to think creatively. Mr. Conner observed
that the presented cross sections would have the buildings 20‐ft above Kimball Ave. Mr. Behr
noted that if there were lower level parking, they might start with a series of columns that open
into parking with terraces above.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 4
Mr. Behr said that 2 elongated buildings can provide pedestrian access at terraced steps. He
felt this would be a great way to make connections. He said there should be features that tie
the lots together. Ms. Eiring suggested murals on the large buildings and suggested engaging
artists. Mr. Gill said a lot is up in the air as they don’t yet know the uses, but he felt they can
put something together for final plat. Mr. Langfeldt said they can have the landscape architect
do some concepts.
#34. Regarding facades, Ms. Keene asked about primary and secondary facades and said
that the primary façade should be on Kennedy Dr. and the secondary facades on the interior
roads. Mr. Gill said on their guide, there is a line to indicate primary facades. They agree with
what Ms. Keene is saying and noted that secondary facades will face parking.
#35 ‐ 38. Staff is asking if structured parking should not front on the street. Mr. Albrecht
suggested keeping that option open as long as it is not a dominant part of the façade. Mr.
Conner raised the question of too much parking on the frontage; as proposed they’re asking for
about 50% of each lot to be building, and 50% to be parking, and then a portion of each buiding
to be parking as well, which might be too much. Mr. Behr said they don’t want to build too
much parking and suggested they consider shared parking. He would like to see more
structured parking below the building. He suggested there could be a landscaped pedestrian
mall through the center of each block. Mr. Langfeldt agreed. He said they would do more
analysis when they have uses for the buildings. He also noted they would like a small‐scale
market, which is currently not allowed, but for which they are seeking a zoning change. Mr. Gill
noted areas where some parking is shown which is where a parking garage could be exposed to
the street (a walkout basement condition). The question is how much of that should be usable
space instead of parking. He showed a picture of some “artsy” ways to do that. He also noted
that the buildings shown are concepts with the required frontages indicated. If they don’t build
the buildings as big as they are shown, the other space could be a civic space. Ms. Keene said
parking is OK for some of the building frontages, but they will also need some “building space.”
Mr. Gill didn’t think the entire area would be parking. There would be doors, etc. He noted
that at Hillside, they have 2 pedestrian accesses per side. Mr. Albrecht said he wasn’t opposed
to some of the parking as long as there is a story on top of it that draws the eye. Mr. Behr said
there will have to be some building façade connections and some activity on the second floor.
He said it will come down to the details. He did not want to see a long line of parking.
Regarding minimum frontage buildout, Ms. Keene asked whether the remaining space becomes
a lawn? Parking lot? She suggested the applicant propose a maximum parking figure, and the
leftover space become civic space (e.g., plaza, green, art park) or building or a park, something
that draws people in. Mr. Behr suggested even combining several things. He cited the Maple
Tree Place development with a small amphitheater. Even a farmer’s market that isn’t all lawn.
Mr. Behr said that if the buildings are small, they will be less able to do structured parking. If
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 5
they have small buildings, there could be a maximum parking so that the remaining space
doesn’t get eaten up by surface parking.
Mr. Conner said the urban design overlay district emphasizes gateways, and buildings in this
area should also have strong entry points. On the slope up Old Farm Road, he suggested more
texture, something to make it feel that this is the heart of it. Mr. Gill felt the 3‐way intersection
(he identified this on the map) is where that space could be created. Mr. Behr asked about
traffic calming at the 3‐way intersection. Mr. Gill said a traffic light in the future, if needed,
raised crosswalks, speed bumps, etc. Mr. Behr suggested different colored paving or pavers to
make it more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Gill said they will get into that detail.
#39. Members felt that in order to have the reduced setback, they needed a very high
quality appearance of the buildings. Mr. Gill said that makes sense.
#40. Mr. Gill said they had contemplated all of the residential density in 3 of the 9
buildings. Given the number of people who will be living in the area, staff is asking that there
be a minimum amount of retail/service space. Board members agreed. Mr. Langfeldt asked
that a DRB member join them when the ask the Planning Commission for more retail space.
Mr. Gill noted the requirements can get trickly, depending on how they are worded. Mr.
Conner suggested the preliminary plat decision have the principle stated with the details to be
at final plat.
#41. The applicant was asked to discuss the limitations on exterior finish materials. Mr.
Gill said they are comfortable with what they have presented. Ms. Keene noted that vinyl
siding is not allowed in the Form Based Code district. Mr. Gill said homes in Hillside are vinyl‐
sided. He didn’t like a blanket prohibition of materials and noted there is vinyl that looks like
clapboard. He suggested looking at buildings as they come in because products change so
quickly. Mr. Behr said he understood that. He wanted to see “aesthetics with a longevity feel,”
none of the elevations should have the appearance of the rear of the buildings. Mr. Langfeldt
agreed and said they are committed to quality. He just didn’t want something prohibited
before it was seen. Mr. Conner suggested there be some language to capture what Mr. Behr
described.
#42. Staff is asking for a minimum of 2 stories as well as a maximum number of stories.
Mr. Langfeldt said they are OK with that as long as the second story could be “unoccupied” as
with Trader Joe’s and the CVS building. Staff also asked that if the building is very tall, there be
setbacks of the upper stories. The applicant agreed. Mr. Behr said he would like a 5th story set
back with possibly a partial green roof. Mr. Gill said they are on board with that. Ms. Keene
also noted the City uses a 30‐foot tree spacing, not 50. Mr. Gill said they are OK with that.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 6
Regarding the width of uninterrupted sidewalk, Mr. Behr asked if 5‐foot was the minimum. Ms.
Keene said that is the standard. Mr. Behr said if the sidewalk is wider it would include ancillary
uses, and the 5‐foot minimum uninterrupted with would be fine. Other members agreed.
#43. Regarding walking trail configuration, Ms. Keene noted that at the east side of the
project the trail connects to the residential portion. She said in a previous configuration, the
road was further to the east. She felt the path should loop around and come back in at the
south end. Mr. Behr asked if the path connects to another path. Ms. Keene said it connect to a
sidewalk. The path in the center connect to another path. Mr. Behr asked how a second path is
beneficial. Mr. Conner said it is another walking loop to avoid boredom. Mr. Homsted asked if
stairs would be allowed as they would be needed. Mr. Gill said that is why they didn’t put in
the connection there. He felt the logical place for the connection is along the potential future
road in the adjacent tilley drive PUD. Ms. Keene asked what they are thinking the paths would
look like. Mr. Gill said it is a wildlife corridor, and they were being sensitive to that. They prefer
an 8‐foot path. The one on the left is a shared use path, 8 or 10 feet wide. The one on the right
could be gravel, about 5 feet wide. Mr. Behr asked whether the city would allow the steps. Mr.
Conner said in that scenario, he would expect it to be privately maintained. Mr. Behr said in
that case, he would have them wait till the roads connect. Other members agreed.
#44. Staff noted the IC road had been proposed much further to the east. Now it is just
a path. Ms. Keene asked whether the path should include a right‐of‐way for a potential road
connection. It would be good if it makes sense later. Mr. Behr added it allows for a visual
connection even if the road doesn’t go in. Mr. Gill said that was a great point. They had taken
the connection out because they provided it elsewhere. There is a question as to whether that
area is viable for a road. Mr. Homsted said they had to design the rec path at a 10‐foot grade.
That is unworkable for a road. Mr. Behr said he understands that, but if some change should
happen, it would give the city a connection of 2 public roads. Ms. Philibert said it makes sense
but understands it is an engineering nightmare. Mr. Gill asked if they could look at making the
connection less than 60 feet. Mr. Behr said he could be convinced of a middle ground as long
as it provides a significant visual break. Mr. Behr noted the applicant should be very clear that
Legacy Farm Extension will continue and will connect to IC road with potential home buyers
#45. Staff suggests lot 33 be used as a neighborhood play area. Ms. Keene showed the
plan with homes on lot 33 and open space on lot 32. She suggested the rec path could be
closer to the homes. Mr. Behr & Ms. Philibert agreed. Mr. Behr noted a disfavorable
comparison to Cider Mill, where there is a buffer separating the rec path from the rear of
homes. People should be able to access the rec path from their backyards. Mr. Gill cited the
need to create a balance. People would like to used their yards in privacy. He suggested
possibly creating opening in the landscaping to the rec path. Members said make it feel more
connected.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 7
#46. Regarding parking for the resident club, Ms. Keene asked if the Board was
comfortable the proposed public parking. She noted that “principally for public recreation” is a
grey area. Mr. Behr asked if the amenities are open to the public. Mr. Langfeldt said the park
area is for the general public. The barn could become many things. Mr. Behr suggested a
sledding hill as there are few in the area that the public uses. Mr. Gill said that was one of their
thoughts. Mr. Behr was comfortable with parking in front. Ms. Philibert said it would be a
shame to take up the back area with its views for a parking lot.
#47‐49: The applicant agreed with the recommendations, and the Board was OK with
them.
#50. Regarding the relationship of structure to the remainder of the PUD. Staff
recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request. Mr. Gill said they are asking for a waiver
of just 14.06C(1) and (2). There is an industrial/commercial zone in the development, 100 feet
wide with a 60‐foot road below it. You can’t make a single‐family home look like an industrial
building, and they are not proposing single family homes in that area. He added it is hard to
make a lumber yard look like a home. Ms. Eiring said she didn’t think they needed a waiver and
they don’t need to make the industrial buildings look like a single family home, just make the
transitions look nice with nothing “glaringly hideous.” She felt like what they’re proposing is
meeting the standard. Ms. Philibert said the Board previously discussed how multi‐family
buildings had a very different look from the homes on Old Farm Road. They had told the
applicant to make them look more “urban.” She added they can be “complementary” not the
same. Mr. Behr agreed with they’re asking for a semblance of a standad so there is a tie in
together. There are buffers, but it shouldn’t feel uncomplimentary. Mr. Langfeldt said that
was reasonable and they can provide common elements. Mr. Albrecht asked that the finding
acknowledge challenges and provide guiding principles as to what the criterion means in this
case. Ms. Keene said staff can run with that and provide guidance when a specific lot is being
reviewed. The applicant was fine with that.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SD‐20‐40 until 6 July 2021. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed 4‐0.
5. Minutes of 29 April 2021:
Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 29 April 2021 was written. Mr. Behr seconded.
Motion passed 4‐0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
26 MAY 2021
PAGE 8
6. Other Business:
Ms. Keene said a topic for the next deliberative session will be how to make things easier for
the Board to review.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:02 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Development Review Board on __________________
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JUNE 2021
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 June
2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E.
Bergquist, D. Marshall, E. Fitzgerald, K. Liebegott, D. Pumo, B. Zigmund, R. Kay, J. Corrigan, L.
Anguin, Brendan, B. Currier, S. Moncrieff, L. Poteau, B. Avery, A Luzzatto, J. Bossange, R. Irish, C.
Yandow, M. Meyer, M. Provost, B. Lamonda, J. Dagesse, K. LeFebre, C. Orben, L. Lackey, P. Moll,
J. Happy, F. Mody, Ellen, J. Bloom, J. Donohue, Jeff, Fred, R. Slusky, R. Schwartzstein, S. & P.
Friberg,
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:
The public was reminded to sign the virtual sign-in or to email their presence to Ms. Keene in
order to be able to appeal a decision by the Board.
Ms. Keene noted the intent to return to “in person” meeting which will also incorporate remote
participation.
4. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-21-06 of Blackrock Construction for the 6.9 acre
“Wheeler Parcel” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf
Course and 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development consists
of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22 dwelling
units in 2-family homes, and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road:
Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a final plat. She noted that in previous hearings there has
been a lot of public comment and asked that any new public comments not repeat what has
previously been said or emailed to staff.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 2
Mr. Avery said they made substantial changes to the layout and thanked the Board for their
ideas. He felt the layout was dramatically improved.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1 and #2: Regarding elevations, staff asked the Board whether they believe the
elevations now meet the applicable criteria. Mr. Behr agreed with Staff’s suggestion that 2
windows should be added to the elevations facing Dorset Street and drew attention to the units
named Maple and Oak. Mr. Avery said they were OK with doing that and with Staff comment
regarding siding. Mr. Albrecht questioned the side elevation of Birch and drew attention to the
“blank space” there. Mr. Avery said they have to account for stairways and closets. The homes
are close together and they don’t want bedroom windows facing each other. He also felt it
make the back of the house more of a focal point. Mr. Albrecht felt that there was an overall
improvement. Regarding affordability, Mr. Behr and Mr. Albrecht felt the applicant should
commit to meeting the affordability requirement and that the affordable units should be
indistinguishable from the market priced units. Mr. Avery said the single-car garage units are
more affordable than any homes in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) though they may not meet
the “affordable” definition. He added that it is always their goal to build a project that can
come in at the entry level of the market. He didn’t know where that would be when these units
come on the market. Mr. Behr said he understood that and because none of the bonuses
would apply to homes in this development, no affordability requirement is needed. Other
members agreed. With regard the “solar ready,” Mr. Avery said they are working up a pre-
packaged solar add-on, and they would be happy to offer that here since they do the wiring
anyway. They will also arrange the roof elements to accommodate solar.
#3-#5. Regarding ledge removal, staff recommends a limit of 3 months for
blasting. Mr. Albrecht said if there is another close-down because of the pandemic, 3 months
may not be viable. Ms. Keene said the applicant estimated for 2 months, staff felt 3 months
covered contingenicies. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is generic language for unforeseen
circumstances. Ms. Hall said staff can decide what level of review it would go back to if a
modification was needed. There is no “boiler plate” language. Mr. Avery said if Maine Drilling
is OK with 3 months, it’s OK, but he did want language for extenuating circumstances. Mr.
Paquette said there are so many possibilities for shutdowns (e.g. storms and breakdowns). He
felt a 3-month window would take care of that. Ms. Keene said staff is OK with that as long as
there is more information regarding day-to-day operations.
Staff is also asking for a limit of 2 blasts per day in a shorter time span than 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mr.
Paquette said 2 a day is what they strive for and they can make that work. The concern is if
there is a breakdown or a storm overnight after the holes have been drilled. They usually have
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 3
one blast between 9 and 11:30 a.m. and the other in the afternoon. The afternoon could be an
issue as they can’t leave the site till the blast happens. He noted there are also warning
whistles and all-clear whistles. Mr. Avery stressed the need to be sure they aren’t stuck when
there is a safety issue. Mr. Happy said the crew can only be on site so long
when hazardous materials are involved. Mr. Behr said he did not want to circumvent safety; he
just wants to be sure the community knows what to expect. Ms. Eiring suggested 2 blasts
between 9 and 4, unless there is an unforeseen circumstance. Ms. Keene asked if the Board is
OK with the 1000 foot radius for notification of neighbors. Mr. Happy said they can do a phone
call list an hour before each blast.
Public comment was then solicited:
Mr. Bossange said there is still too much community backlash regarding blasting. He said they
don’t want to stop the development, just “fit it in and be responsible.” He said the HOAs are
ready to appeal and people feel they still have not been heard as there are still 32 homes and 2
intersections on Park Road as well as concern with blasting.
Ms. Philibert said the DRB hears the concerns. She stressed that their job is only to see that the
project conforms with the LDRs.
Mr. McLain asked whether they will be trucking away debris after blasting. Mr. Avery said they
still don’t know if they will use it for the road base. Mr. McLain asked if they would bring in a
crusher. Mr. Avery said he didn’t know yet. Mr. Currier said the goal is to use as much on-site
as possible, but some will be trucked away. Mr. Avery said since they will be blasting for
basements, there won’t be a lot of volume above ground, and they won’t extract it or leave a
large hole. He said there won’t be a lot of rock hanging around the site.
Mr. Luzzatto asked if the water tower people have been contacted. Mr. Avery said they will
extend the pre-blast survey to the water tower people. There will also be a seismograph placed
which should alleviate concerns. Mr. Currier said CWD and the South Burlington Water Dept.
reviewed the plans and their comments have been addressed.
Mr. Kay asked if the city has indemnification if there is damage to structures. Mr. Avery said
that falls under Maine Drilling’s insurances. Mr. Happy said they are covered with a
$10,000,000.00 umbrella.
(Mr. Langan arrived at this point in the meeting)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 4
Ms. LeFevre felt given the issues, more time is required regarding blasting, and she didn’t feel
the application should be closed at this meeting. She felt residents shouldn’t have to complain
to get vibration level standards adhered to.
Ms. O’Neill asked if there is danger to gas pipes from the blasting. Mr. Happy said they call
Vermont Dig Safe and they provide the allowance from the utility lines. He noted that Vermont
Gas is very strict. Mr. Paquette said they call Vermont Gas before every blast and they come to
monitor the blast.
Ms. Zigmund was concerned with relying on the blasting company and felt the DRB was not
fully informed of the impact to gas lines and the water tower.
Mr. Albrecht asked whether there were claims of damage regarding gas lines on other projects.
Ms. Hall said none that she knows of.
Mr. Behr said the DRB does not take blasting lightly. They required a technical review and will
implement what is required. He stressed that Maine Drilling is a very reputable company. He
also stressed that the Board will take all comments very seriously in its discussions. He felt
comfortable closing the application. Ms. Eiring agreed. Mr. Albrecht said the review by third
party engineers was very helpful, and he felt the Board had enough information. He stressed
that there will be conditions if there is an approval.
Mr. Behr then moved to close SD-21-06. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
5. Final Plat Application #SD-21-15 of JAM Golf, LLC, to amend a previously approved
plan for an 11-lot residential subdivision. The amendment consists of modifying the
tree preservation area for the purpose of changing the stormwater treatment system
and updating the tree inventory to reflect existing conditions, Long Drive:
Ms. Philibert asked for historical information as to what happened at Long Drive.
Ms. Hall said the Long Drive project got a permit in the spring of 2020 (it had been litigated
through 2018). There were documents regarding tree preservation with one lot to be
preserved for “woodiness.” The developer was to follow a handbook regarding the trees on the
knoll. The lots would face into a circle. In the intervening years, the trees grew, and the project
began. They were proceeding with the infrastructure. One permit was given for a lot that was
subsequently withdrawn. A “stop work” order was issued due to compliance issues,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 5
and that is still being addressed. The application had proposed sewers. Due to a change in
stormwater regulations, they now propose a new system with swales, and they want to clear
areas for stormwater treatment that were to remain wooded. A map of the area was shown.
Ms. Keene noted the applicant is asking to update their tree inventory to represent what is on
the site.
Mr. Albrecht noted that he knows the applicant through work but felt he could continue
impartially.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Staff recommends that DRB members walk by the site and check it out. Ms.
Keene said members should see that this is a generally wooded area. 17 of the trees would be
removed for this application. She asked members to think about that in relation to the wooded
area. Ms. Philibert asked what other choices are available. Mr. Marshall said that in 2018,
when an application was approved by the DRB, the applicant began getting other permits.
There was then a change in how stormwater is permitted by the State. In a perfect world, Mr.
Marshall said, this would have been before the city from the beginning. The new rules
improved what was required. They now have to place swales in the proper direction. They
wanted to place them between the trees and did that for the most part. In a few places,
removal of trees would allow compliance with the State standards. They have identified the
trees with the least value. The Arborist’s report shows each tree or group of trees, and the
Arborist says the removal of those trees will help the remaining trees. The site has about 300
trees. Mr. Marshal also noted that the original tree survey was done in 2003, and things have
changed since then (trees blown down, some dying, new trees, etc.). The area has been
remapped, and staff recommends that information be adopted by the Board. Mr. Marshall
then showed photos of the character of the area.
#2. Staff noted that the applicant has provided a report on the impacts.
#3. Mr. Marshall noted that page 2 of the Arborist’s report explains why there
will not be a negative impact.
#4. Staff asked whether the Board should require replanting to replace the lost
plantings to improve screening. Mr. Behr said the Board followed all the guidance of the Court
order and tried to alleviate concerns of residents. He felt anything that can add screening
would be good to also enhance the long-term tree preservation plan. He also felt trees should
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 6
equal the same caliper. Mr. Albrecht felt it was “overkill” to ask for the trees to be replaced as
the area is heavily treed, and it is not a “chunk” of trees being taken out. Ms. Eiring said she
would like at least some of the trees replaced. Mr. Langan agreed with Mr. Behr that all the
trees should be replaced following the regulations. Ms. Keene said the Arborist thought it was
a good plan and strongly supports #5. He did not recommend replacement, but he is not a
planner. Mr. Behr felt any new trees will be beneficial for the long term, but not as screening.
Ms. Philibert suggested replacing half of the trees. Ms. Keene said that wasn’t a bad idea, and
she would ask the arborist where screening will be enhanced. Members agreed to half with the
Arborist’s suggestions for placement. Mr. Marshall said they will come back with a plan that
makes sense.
#5. Staff asks that the narrative be applied to all future construction within the
development. Members were OK with that.
Ms. Keene noted there was an error in the warning, and the application would have to be
continued to allow for additional public comment.
Public comment was then solicited:
Ms. Zigmund said this property was the subject of a long lawsuit and the decision was very
specific regarding replacement of trees. She said trees that were destroyed last year have not
been replaced. She added that she would have her attorney review this.
Ms. Angwin agreed with Ms. Zigmund. She said it is a tree protection plan, and that is not what
is happening. She said the damage has resulted in trees dying.
Mr. Behr agreed that they must be in compliance with the court order retarding tree protection
and reminded the applicant of that. Mr. Marshall said they are not trying to “nickel and dime.”
He added that if they had known of the change in stormwater rules bac then, it would have
been the same project.
Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-21-15 to 15 July 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
6. Site Plan Application #SP-21-018 of Burlington International Airport to amend a
previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of an
approximately 33,440 (gross) sf 2-story addition to the south end of the existing
airport terminal, 1200 Airport Drive:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 7
Mr. Albrecht said that he professionally knows Mr. Lackey but didn’t see a conflict issue.
Mr. Lackey noted this application was previously presented, and they have submitted a written
response to staff comments.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked whether the lot coverage figures include the hotel. Mr. Moncreiff
said the existing lot coverage is 34.445% and coverage with the project is 34.429% including the
hotel.
#2. The applicant was requested to provide diagrams of fins, etc. Mr. Lackey
noted that when you go from Airport Drive to Airport Circle, you start to see the existing
building. The addition was designed to mimic the visual details of the existing building. They
are continuing the ribbon windows and the punch windows (limited in number because of
security concerns) and the vertical pilasters which break up the façade. They are also creating a
“cornering element” which is darker to provide a background for the new terminal sign.
#3. The applicant was asked to provide information regarding screening of the
dumpster. Ms. Orben said the dumpster will be enclosed by a chain link fence with slats. There
will be groupings of plans up to 10-12 feet high. The enclosure is existing and will be enlarged
toward the east. They will also move an existing dumpster from another area to inside this
enclosure.
#4. The Board was asked to review the landscape plan and decide whether to
allow the grasses and hardscape as part of the landscape budget. Ms. Orben said the grasses
will add texture and color and are used throughout the Master Plan. The column lights are a
structural feature and will vary in height with ornamental grasses beneath them. Member were
OK with this plan.
#5. The applicant was asked to find a creative way to address the Arborist’s
comments. Ms. Orben agreed the honey locust would be better where the Arborist suggests.
The also removed crown pruning as the Arborist said it is no longer necessary. They will put up
borders to protect the islands.
#6. The applicant was asked to update bike parking spaces and calculate whether
additional space is required. Mr. Lackey said they have provided that information. They have
one bike locker and room for more, if needed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 JUNE 2021
PAGE 8
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SP-21-018. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
7. Minutes of 4 May 2021:
Mr. Behr moved to approve the minutes of 4 May 2021 as presented. Ms. Eiring seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
8. 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 9:50 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Development Review Board on__________