HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_2021-11-02 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 NOVEMBER 2021
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2
November 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to
Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Brown, Planning & Zoning
Assistant; D. Marshall, G. Dixon, J. Richards, J. Dahlstrom, T. Lindberg, E. Chase, J. O’Hara, L.
Lamphere, D. Roy, K. DesRoches, K. Easton
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instruction on emergency exiting of the building. She also reminded
attendees to sign in and explained the procedure for remote viewers.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Philibert proposed switching items 6 and 7 on the agenda. Members were OK with this as
were the applicants.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Ms. Keene advised that the Council has appointed Quin Mann to fill the vacant seat on the DRB.
She will attend the next DRB meeting on November 16.
5. Site Plan Application #SP-21—039 of South Village Communities, LLC, to provide a
replacement plan for trees and shrubs that were improperly removed. The plan
consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path
between Aiken Street and Spear Street, east of the existing recreation path, 1840
Spear Street:
Staff advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 7 December.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-21-039 to 7 December 2021. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE 2
6. (formerly #7) Sketch plan application #SD-21-24 of Reperio Properties, LLC, to
construct a 4320 sq. ft. licensed non-residential child care facility on an existing 0.7
acre lot and make minor site modifications to the adjacent licensed non-residential
child care facility on the adjacent 0.9 acre lot, 1459 and 1474 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan.
Mr. Dixon explained that the aim is to construct another pre-school as there is not enough
room in the existing facility for one age group. The properties would be kept separate but
would share playground space.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
a. The Board was asked to provide feedback regarding architecture and whether it is
an attractive addition to the existing building. The applicant showed renderings of
what is proposed. Mr. Behr felt it was not unattractive but questioned whether it is
in the appropriate style for Shelburne Road. He felt a more “quasi-commercial” feel
would be more appropriate rather than an accessory building look. Ms. Keene said
there are varying degrees of specificity in the LDRs and read from them. Ms.
Philibert said if one building is Victorian and one is metal and glass, how do you
make that decision. Mr. Behr said he wanted buildings with complementary uses to
have complementary design. Ms. Philibert said “so more Victorian.” Mr. Behr
clarified he thought it should look more like a principal building in its own right
rather than accessory.
b. The applicant was asked to discuss how they intend to comply with the requirement
for parking lot islands. Mr. Dixon said they are looking to retain as much parking as
possible. There are now “kind of islands” with green space. They could do 2 or 4 in
the back parking lot. Ms. Philibert stressed the need for safety in the parking areas
with little children running around. Ms. Keene reminded the applicant that if they
wanted to take credit for interior islands between parking areas, the parking areas
themselves would be added into the calculation as well.
c. Staff asked if the applicant considered making the southern curb one-way out only.
Mr. Dixon agreed to look into that and see if the Fire Chief is comfortable with it. He
identified the existing drop-off areas (near the entrance with the ramp and near the
south entrance near the front) and said it would make sense to restrict people
coming off Shelburne Rd. into those areas. They could possibly reduce the width of
the new parking area which would reduce coverages, etc.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE 3
d. Staff asked about possible access from Holmes Road. Mr. Dixon said they continue
to look at that. It is not a public right-of-way, but they are talking with the owner.
e. The applicant was asked to describe why the drive is 15 feet wide and why it can’t be
reduced to 9 or 10 feet wide. Mr. Dixon said they are thinking of fire truck access.
They are not opposed to reducing it and could maybe add a few parking spaces.
f. The applicant was asked for the location of the dumpster. Mr. Dixon said it will
remain where it is and will be used for both buildings. They want to retain parking in
front of it during rush hours.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Easton said she walks this area every day and has 2 issues. She was surprised about a
shared exit on Holmes Road. The only road would be the access to the Goss Dealership which
would land people in front of the fire station. Her second issue involved stormwater. She
noted that all properties to the west of this property have an interest in stormwater issues
including a Class 2 wetland. All the water that comes from the north and east goes toward the
Lake. She noted that in the past few days, that stream has been very full. Ms. Easton hoped
that there would be consideration of traffic and stormwater.
7. (formerly #6) Continued Master Plan Permit Application #MS-21-04 of Larkin Realty
for stream alteration and stormwater drainage modifications, 1195 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Philibert noted this is a very complex project and asked for an overview.
Mr. Marshall said the project’s aim is to stabilize a portion of an unnamed stream. There is an
outfall from a section of the stream that has created significant erosion. Mr. Farrell, owner of
the property, is looking to stabilize the stream and address the erosion.
Mr. Marshall said the proposal maintains a minimum flow to the stream but diverts peak flows
to a stable portion of the stream further downstream. Erosion at that location is much less.
Mr. Marshall said they have worked with the State of Vermont on this and also with city staff as
to what does and does not apply. One section of the LDRs requires the applicant to go before
the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee. That has not yet happened. The DRB can
also invoke technical review to review concepts and provide guidance. The question is how
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE 4
deep to get into this tonight as things may change when they go to the NRC Committee and
have technical review. Nothing will move quickly, and a lot may change.
Ms. Philibert said the project seems expensive and asked where the pressure is coming from to
do this and whose idea was it. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Farrell is concerned with erosion as it is
chewing up his property. The feeling is that if pressure is taken off the stream, Mother Nature
can repair the damage.
Ms. Keene said the DRB should make big picture decisions first. There is a question as to
whether encroachment into the stream buffer is allowed. If the Board finds encroachment is
not allowed, Staff feels there is no reason to pursue this.
Mr. Langan said there must be no alternative, the encroachment has to be necessary, and it
must be for a permitted or conditional use. If the condition is unsafe, it needs to be corrected.
The Board needs to see if that is the case.
Mr. Behr said that without a development proposal, what would the regulations allow, and he
felt there is some pretty strict language in that regard. The question is whether there are other
alternatives. Mr. Marshall said the need is there because it is failing and has failed. The
question is whether we care about erosion. He was comfortable saying this proposal is
extraordinary instead of the “easy answer.” This is innovative thinking.
Mr. Albrecht asked how many properties feed into the discharge. Mr. Marshall said about 200
acres (he showed this on the screen). Ms. Keene noted that if this were a stormwater
treatment project, there would be different standards.
Mr. Albrecht suggested having the legal staff look at this. He felt the project made sense to
him. Mr. Behr said it made sense, but whether the Board can permit it is the question. He
would like that guidance and felt technical review could provide it. Mr. Albrecht said they also
need to know if something in the LDRs will allow it. Mr. Langan said they need to know this is
necessary that that this is the best way to do it. He also felt they didn’t know enough about
other alternatives.
Ms. Keene said if the DRB determines this is necessary, the question is which alternative to go
with. Underground the stream? Allow the stream to meander? These are all still within the
stream buffer, and the question is whether they are allowed.
Mr. Langan questioned whether the house is in jeopardy. Mr. Marshall showed photos of the
situation and how erosion has undermined piping and actually disconnected it in places. He
noted a 60” pipe transitions to a 36” pipe which is not a standard situation.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE 5
Mr. Albrecht asked what would happen to parts of the stream where there is erosion. Mr.
Marshall said it would restore what used to be there, a lawn area. He indicated where the new
culvert would be. Mr. Albrecht noted that a house would not be allowed there now, so it is
non-conforming. Mr. Marshall said they cannot make it more non-conforming, but they are
looking to restore it to its previous state. It would allow the stream to still operate as a stream.
Ms. Keene read a list of situations that would allow incursion into the buffer. Repair of existing
conditions is not in that list.
Mr. Marshall then showed the plan and traced the area where erosion is happening. He
explained what happens with large storm events and showed a photo of an eroded area. He
also showed a photo of the Class 2 wetland and where the stream channel has eroded the
channel. He also showed a photo of where the Class 2 wetland goes into a smaller Class 3
wetland and where the stream flattens and there is no longer erosion. He said this is what they
are looking to do: to reintroduce peak flows where they can be handled. The issue is how to
stabilize the area in the most sensitive way possible, and they feel this is what the proposed
project does. He stressed it is not the cheapest solution.
Mr. Albrecht said the problem is trying to fit the project into the LDRs. He said this has been
happening elsewhere in the county with other projects. Mr. Marshall said the regulations were
written because people had done the wrong thing. He added that if they had to get a
stormwater permit here, they would be justified. He stressed that this situation was not
envisioned with the rules were written.
Ms. Keene said if the Board chooses to continue the application they can ask for more
information or they can deliberate and ask for legal advice or ask for technical review, or a
combination of any of these options. Mr. Albrecht felt it made sense to continue the hearing,
deliberate, and anticipate what areas the Board needs to have addressed.
Mr. Marshall noted it will be a month before they can appear before the NRC Committee. He
suggested continuing the hearing to the next meeting and decide whether to invoke technical
review, then continue it to get information back from the NRC Committee. Mr. Albrecht asked
if they can get a legal opinion as well. Ms. Keene said they can.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Easton thanked the Board for having this hearing. She said this is a very complicated issue.
The neighborhood is in a very ecologically sensitive area, and residents try to do their part to
keep it healthy. This is an effort to mitigate a situation, but they would like to know the impact
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 NOVEMBER 2021
PAGE 6
on properties that abut the stream. They would also like to know whether this is looking
forward to development in the future of parcels in the area. Ms. Easton said they would
support the project if it will help the Lake.
Mr. Behr asked if water quality will be improved. Mr. Marshall said it will stabilize the site. It
will not downgrade the soil. He didn’t know if it will help abutters. Water quality will be
improved.
Mr. Behr then moved to continue MS-21-04 to 16 November 2021. Mr. Albrecht seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board.
8. Minutes of 19 October 2021:
Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 19 October 2021 as written. Ms. Philibert
seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
9. 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 9:00 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Development Review Board on __________