HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_draft minutesDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18
January 2022, 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, F. Kochman,
Q. Mann
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; L.
Lackey, A. Klugo, B. Carrier, A. J. LaRose, A. Sanchez, Blain, B. Ferland, C. Lange, C. Caputo, C.
Carter, C. Silvey, D. Gouger, D. Saladino, M. Grant, Hal, Jacob KG, Jacquie, J. Page, L. Merrithew,
N. Hyman, P. Irish, P. Boisvert, P. Simon, Robert, S. Brutzman, S. Mowat, T. Lindberg, D. Stewart,
D. Carman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provide instructions for emergency exit from the building.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Ms. Philibert reminded people to sign the writer or virtual sign-in sheets as this is a necessity
should they wish to appeal a decision of the DRB.
5. Continued 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 paved recreation
path, 1840 Spear Street:
Staff noted that the plans were received too late to be reviewed for this meeting and
recommended continuing until 15 February.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 2
Ms. Wyman moved to continue SP-21-039 until 15 February 2022. Ms. Mann seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit
development on 5 lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a
warehouse, a contractor yard, and an RV sales, service and repair facility. The Master
Plan includes combining the 5 lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres, and consists of
a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,000 sq. ft. office and retail
building, a 15,600 sq. ft. commercial building and an 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction
and airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road:
Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Klugo provided a brief overview of the project, noting that they will be developing 40 acres
on the south end of the Airport to accommodate an assembly facility. The project is intended
to be a campus to tie all the facilities together.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff questioned whether the area of the master plan can be increased to
accommodate the geothermal field without having to reward the entire project. Mr. Klugo said
the area of the geothermal field is 2.38 acres which increases the total acreage to 40.4. This
was inadvertently removed from the master plan but has been part of the original project since
sketch plan review. Mr. Klugo noted the 2.38 acres is non-contiguous and questioned how it
would have to be handled. It is all underground, and there can never be anything on top of it.
It is also in an area restricted by the FAA and could never be built on. Mr. Kochman asked if
that area wasn’t part of this project, what could it be used for. The applicant replied “nothing.”
Ms. Keene said the easiest path forward would be not to reward the master plan but to have
the geothermal well field as a separate project. She added that if it is excluded from the project
as a whole, they meet with dimensional standards. Mr. Klugo was OK with that approach. Ms.
Keene then noted that the Board cannot waive three things, one of which is exceeding the
maximum lot coverage. As warned, they are at 50.3 which exceeds the allowable coverage;
with the geothermal field and apron, they are at 49.1 which is within the allowable limit.
Mr. Klugo said the cleanest way forward is to proceed with what was intended. He questioned
what would be considered a “material change” in this instance. Mr. Kochman said the
Environmental Court has been generous in allowing a pretty big change as “immaterial.” To
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 3
him, the question is what is the purpose of the warning. Mr. Klugo said the purpose is to let
people know if they are being impacted by the project. In this case, there is no impact. Mr.
Kochman asked whether it could leak harmful gas. Mr. Klugo said there is no gas; they are
heating only water. He also noted that it was warned under preliminary and final application
(which is the next agenda item). Mr. Kochman asked if that warning is in its current location.
Mr. Klugo said it is. He added that it is also discussed in the narrative.
Mr. Albrecht asked if there are state standards as to what has to be in a warning. Ms. Keene
said there are not. Mr. Albrecht said it is then incumbent on the public to look at a plan. He
asked if the geothermal field was on the plan. Ms. Philibert said it is on the plan. Mr. Albrecht
said it is them adequately warned. Mr. Kochman asked if someone saw the warning, looked at
the plans, would they have seen the geothermal field on the plan. Mr. Klugo said that level of
technological detail is not on a master plan, though the area would have been there. Mr.
Kochman asked whether the public could have found the area and its use on-line. Mr. Klugo
said yes, the information was there in both filings. Ms. Keene showed the plans and indicated
the geothermal field clearly shown. She also agreed that the master plan does not need to
have that level of detail. Ms. Keene then read from State Statute 44.64. Mr. Kochman said the
issue is whether the defect is “material,” which is where the discussion started. He added that it
is his inclination that it is not material. Mr. Langan said he felt there is adequate notice and
does not need to be rewarned. Mr. Kochman said he is inclined the same way. Ms. Philibert
asked if any member felt there was not adequate warning. No member said they felt the
warning inadequate.
#2. Staff asked that the Board decline the height waiver as part of the master plan but
allow it on a case-by-case basis when they submit a plan for a building. Mr. Klugo said they can
work with staff’s recommendation. Members agreed with staff’s recommendation.
#3. Staff questioned “unplanned square footage” in relation to floor area ratio (FAR).
Mr. Klugo said the request at the last meeting was for a variable FAR depending on the zoning
district. They are willing to accept staff’s thinking. Ms. Keene said the applicant is proposing a
509,000 sq. ft. building. That can be used for the FAR or the Board could give them a “cushion.”
Ms. Keene reminded the Board, that if the FAR increases, other things (e.g., traffic) can also
increase. Mr. Klugo noted they are way below the allowable trip ends. He added that if the
intent is to have things aligned, they would be OK with a 5% cushion for now and come in for
more, if needed. Mr. Albrecht said that as long as the lot coverage is the same, he was OK with
the FAR.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 4
#4. Regarding open space, staff questioned whether to exclude the sculpture lawn and
entry plaza from “permanent open space” and to require that open space be maintained as
public open space. Members were OK with this.
#5. Regarding peak hour vehicle trips, Ms. Keene noted that staff received the traffic
study today. It projects 526 peak hour trips. Staff will review the study. She noted that the city
has not general issue with the proposal, but other entities (CCRPC and VTrans) have an issue
with the location of the traffic signal. The applicant said VTrans is OK with the signal at the new
main drive. There is a slight disagreement from CCRPC, but they defer to VTrans. Ms. Keene
said since the city currently has no head of Public Works to review the traffic study, staff
recommends a technical review. Mr. Klugo noted the 526 is less than the number in the
original technical review. He didn’t think this issue should warrant continuation. Mr. Kochman
did not agree. Mr. Klugo said they weren’t against it being done; it was the issue of timing. Ms.
Keene said if the report is as good as the applicant says, she will write a decision for the next
meeting, not a staff report. Mr. Klugo said he could support that, and members voiced no
concerns.
#6. Ms. Keene noted staff has received both the wastewater and water information.
#7. Regarding limiting various uses in the paved area, Mr. Klugo said the only exception
they have will be for additional car chargers in front of the building. Ms. Keene said there is
language to allow that.
#8. Regarding the timeline for completion of each phase, Ms. Philibert noted the
applicant’s request is for 5 years from completion of each phase to completion of the next
phase. Mr. Albrecht said he understood the applicant can request and additional year and a
half. Mr. Klugo said they would be happy to say 3-1/2 years and then go to the 5 years. Ms.
Keene noted there is a long-term lease on one of the existing buildings. Mr. Klugo said they will
have to work that through with the landlord. Ms. Keene noted the LDR under which this
application is submitted has no time limit; the new LDRs have a 6-year limit. Mr. Kochman said
if the applicant is happy with 3-1/2 years, why should the Board care. Ms. Quinn questioned
whether “substantiall completion of a building” is adequate. Mr. Kochman said that is when a
building is ready for occupancy. Mr. Klugo noted they could get a temporary CO if there is
landscaping that cannot be done till the following planting season He added that forcing a date
to build a building is contrary to everything that they have been discussing. From the
community’s perspective, the question is when would the public elements get built. He
reminded the Board that they are adding 500+ sustainable, good jobs to the community. Ms.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 5
Keene suggested giving them 5 years but with a cap of 10 years for the last submittal of a site
plan. Mr. Klugo said they are fine with that. There were no objections from the Board.
#9. Ms. Philibert noted that the Board did discuss parking in their deliberative session
and had issues with the fact that the parking in front of the building is not taken care of until
the last phase of the development. Ms. Keene noted that Section 14.07 of the LDRs allows the
Board to permit parking in front of a building when there are unusual hardships that prevent if
from being behind the building, but that does not apply when the development is a PUD. Mr.
Kochman said it does not appeal the Board can waive this though he agreed there is a hardship
in this case. Mr. Klugo asked how they can put parking on a piece of land that does not allow
for any use. Ms. Keene said it is up to the applicant to provide a workable proposal. Staff did
have one idea that could be viable. It would involve a “surety” with the city for a public park,
and the surety is the land itself and the “punishment” would be the land becomes public
recreation. Mr. Kochman said it sounds ingenious, but he didn’t think the Board can impose it,
though they could accept it as a proposal from the developer. Mr. Klugo said the applicant in
this case is a tenant, not the owner. He asked if they could align the building with the 10-year
window they just agreed to. He stressed that the timeframe is not the issue, performance is
the issue. He noted that they could build a structure like the one at CVS along Dorset Street,
but they don’t want to go that route. Mr. Kochman asked if there is any change in the new
LDRs that could address this issue. Ms. Keene said that section of the LDRs has not been
modified. Mr. Klugo said he would talk with the property owners and see what can be
proposed.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue MP-21-020 to 15 February 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
Due to time concerns, members agreed to hear the final item on the agenda before the next
scheduled item.
7. Sketch plan application #SD-22-02 of DS Realty, LLC, to amend a previous approval for
a lot currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio
and standard restaurant in one building and three homes in two buildings. The
amendment consists of removing all three homes by demolishing the buildings and
constructing a second principal building for educational use, adding educational
facility as an allowed use, and constructing associated site improvements 916
Shelburne Road:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 6
Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan.
Mr. Simon then noted the applicant has modified the previous plan and will now replace the
carriage house building. It is an existing non-conforming building. With a new building, they
can address many of the challenges and meet the requirements.
Ms. Davis said they plan to offer art education to all age groups. They “inherited” the 3
residential units, one of which was demolished by a pine tree. Instead of having new tenants,
they want the new buildings to be part of the art studio.
Mr. Simon said they can now bring the parking lot into conformance and straighten it out. They
will also do a design for the new building similar to the former carriage house and have a robust
landscape plan. They are under a time crunch and will want to combine preliminary and final
plats in the hope of occupying the building by June.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Ms. Keene noted the applicant will have to comply with the new residence
replacements regulations. Mr. Simon said this may be addressed when the new LDRs are
adopted. Ms. Keene noted the draft LDRs exempt educational facilities from housing
replacement.
#2. Mr. Simon said they have provided trip generation date as requested. There is a
reduction in trip ends from the previous restaurant use. Ms. Keene said staff has some
questions but will work out the issues with the applicant.
#3. Regarding parking and access, Ms. Philibert noted there is a suggestion that if people
exited onto Lindenwood, it would limit direct access to Shelburne Road for left turners. Mr.
Simon said the queueing issue is at the next intersection up the road, and it is actually harder to
exit from Lindenwood than directly onto Shelburne Road. They would also have to redesign the
project to have access to Lindenwood. Mr. Davis said there is no traffic light at Lindenwood,
and people would almost never be able to turn left. Ms. Davis said the Lindenwood neighbors
would also have an issue with exiting onto Lindenwood. Mr. Kochman said that he thought
using Lindenwood would be a disaster. Mr. Langan added that Lindenwood is also a well-used
bike route, and he felt it would not be good to add more traffic there. Other members agreed.
Ms. Keene noted that under the draft LDRs, a master plan would be required for multi-
structures on a lot. Staff feels this would be a pretty heavy requirement in this case and
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 7
suggested that the proposed new structure being only half the size of the original building,
could be considered an “accessory structure” and thus not subject to a master plan.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Keene noted receipt of an email from Sarah Brutzman who expressed concern with
“artificial light,” loss of some elder trees, and traffic.
No other issues were raised.
8. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC, to
consolidate 5 existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres
and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a Master Plan, to
include a 544,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, improving approximately
2400 sq. ft. of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070
Williston Road:
Ms. Wyman was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Klugo provided a brief overview of the project. Phase 1 includes the building, driveway and
a majority of parking as well as Williston Road improvements.
Members then addressed staff comments as follows:
#1. Mr. Klugo noted they had submitted a copy of the FAA determination that the
building height is acceptable.
#2. This was previously addressed.
#3. The applicant was asked to describe the connection in terms of location and impact
to traffic patterns. Mr. Klugo said this is a single lot. He asked what the concern is. Ms.
Keene said one of the things that CCRPC mentioned is concern with a proposed interim
connection to Valley Road. Mr. Klugo showed the route of Valley Road and indicated where it
forks in several directions. They intent to improve one of those paths. He stressed that they
are not proposing anything different from what exists now. Mr. Klugo added that VTrans was
originally concerned that employees would bypass the stoplight and put increased traffic in
front of Mirabel’s. To address this, Mr. Klugo said they could make it a one way entrance only.
Ms. Keene said that can be a condition of approval.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 8
#4. Regarding utilities, Mr. Klugo referred to a diagram. He noted Velco is not a
provider, and there is no conflict between systems.
#5. Regarding landscaping, screening and tree preservation, Mr. Klugo said that the
majority of trees that need to be removed are either for grading purposes or are merely tree
stumps. There are 2 spruce trees to be removed. The 5 along the rec path are stumps. Two
maple trees are compromised and are not worth keeping. They will plant replacements in
another location. They may be able to adjust the path to save one tree.
#6. Staff asked about the “build-in” site furniture. Mr. Klugo noted this was part of the
original proposal but wasn’t highlighted. It involves landscape walls, steps, etc. What is
described as an “amphitheater” is a multi-purpose gathering place. They are not planning any
concerts or events there. Mr. Hodgson said it is basically landscaped terraces. He indicated the
area on the plan.
Mr. Klugo noted a request of the arborist to justify prices of larger items. He said they are 30%
above the landscape requirements, not because they have to but because it is the right thing to
do.
#7. Staff requested supplemental photometric drawings. Mr. Klugo said those were
sent over today. There are no hot spots.
#8. Regarding long-term bicycle parking and staff’s concern with the design of the bike
rack, Mr. Klugo showed a drawing regarding bike parking strategies for short term and long
term (indoor) bike parking. He then showed floor plans of two locations in the building for
lockers and showers. He also noted the bike rack they propose is the same as the one just
approved by the Board at the north hangar. They are steel and embedded in concrete.
#9. Staff asked about the design of the bus shelter to make it more harmonious with
the project and surrounding area. Mr. Klugo said they are planning to install the GMT standard
bus shelter. The Board expressed not issue with this.
#10. Staff questioned the timeline for the second phase of the building, noting that
most of the building aesthetics are in the second phase. Mr. Klugo said the first aircraft they
will build will be hand-built. They will then go to automation. They need time to design that
process. He felt phase one doesn’t “play” as half a building, and a lot of care has been taken
with it.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 9
Due to the late hour, Ms. Philibert suggested continuing this discussion at the next hearing. The
applicant expressed concern with delaying construction. Ms. Keene said she would do her best
to have a decision written for the 15 February meeting.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-21-28 until 15 February 2022. Ms. Mann seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:13 p.m.
The Board approved these minutes on
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 2
February 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom
interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman,
Q. Mann
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M.
Biama,, D. Roy, J. Illick, K. Hunt, A. Rowe, John, G. Farrell, A. Gill, T. Getz, J. Giebink, Z. Davisson,
E. Langfeldt
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. She also explained
how to participate virtually.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Keene asked to add a request to reopen SD-22-01 at 5 Johnson Way.
Mr. Behr moved to reopen SD-22-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
Ms. Philibert reminded members to sign the attendance sheet in the auditorium of register
their presence virtually in order to be able to appeal a decision of the Board.
5. Continued final plat application #SD-21-26 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to consolidate 3
lots of 6.77 acres (lot 11), 6.62 acres (lot 12) and 6.42 acres (lot 13) into one lot for the
purpose of constructing a 130,790 sq. ft. building on a single 19.81 acre lot. The
application for development is being reviewed under separate site plan application,
443 Community Drive:
Mr. Langan and Ms. Wyman were both recused due to a potential conflict of interest.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 2
Ms. Philibert advised that the Board has received a draft decision. Mr. Illick said they have seen
the draft and have no issues with it.
Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the requirement of an easement deed to an
indetermined entity, “the owner of Lot B.” He noted that this has apparently been done
before without a problem, but noted that you used to have to convey property to a named
person. Ms. Keene said staff reviewed the deed the applicant sent, and it is from Greenfield
(which does not yet own the lot) to the Community Drive LLC. Mr. Kochman said he would
withdraw his concern.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SD-21-26. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-21-046 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to construct a
two to three story, 130,790 sq. ft. light manufacturing, warehouse and office project,
418 parking spaces, and associated site improvements on a proposed 19.81 acre lot,
443 Community Drive:
Mr. Langan and Ms. Wyman were recused due to a potential conflict of interest.
Staff comments were reviewed as follows:
#1. Ms. Keene noted that the Arborist has reviewed the plans and is OK with it.
#2. Staff is asking that the transformer be screened on 3 sides with yews and with the
open side facing toward the building. The applicant was OK with this.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SP-21-046. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Langan and Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 3
7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-41 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-units multi-family
dwellings, and an existing single family home. The amendment consists of eliminating
an approved left turn lane on Spear Street, modifying approved landscaping along
Spear Street, and minor modifications to water, sewer and drainage pipes, 1302, 1340
and 1350 Spear Street:
Mr. Rowe provided a brief overview of the plan. He noted the original approval was in 2017,
and construction is now underway. The new plan includes “housekeeping items” that have
arisen with utilities and eliminating a left-turn lane. Mr. Rowe noted that they redid the
analysis, and the left turn lane is now not warranted. Public Works agrees with this.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked whether the Board agrees with the conclusion to eliminate the turn
lane. Mr. Behr said he is OK with it. Mr. Langan said he drives that segment of road daily, and
traffic volumes, especially in the evening, will make it hard to turn into this development and
may back traffic up into the intersection. Mr. Langan noted that 2013 numbers were used for
traffic counts, and the report says the numbers are declining. He felt that was not true in South
Burlington, Shelburne, and the campus of UVM and Medical Center at the top of Spear Street.
The report says most of the crashes have happened at the intersection, and Mr. Langan said
that is his point. He said most cars go faster than the 35 mph speed limit. Mr. Kochman said he
has the same concern as a regular user of that segment. He felt traffic will continue to increase
over the years. He opposed removing the left turn lane. Mr. Langan added that the 2004
scoping study indicated that the intersection at Nowland Farm Road was at level of service “F,”
and it has gotten worse since then. Mr. Behr said he sees where Mr. Langan is coming from and
didn’t see a reason to eliminate the left turn lane. Ms. Philibert asked Ms. Keene why Public
Works was OK with eliminating that turn lane. Ms. Keene said they were “good with the
analysis.” Her understanding is that the city is into the business of getting away from widening
roads and having more pavement. She noted there is a short to medium term plan to restripe
Spear Street to be two 10-foot lanes and 2 bike lanes. Ms. Philibert asked if that wouldn’t
exacerbate traffic. Mr. Rowe said Roger Dickinson had done the analysis. The entrance to the
project is 1200 feet from the Swift/Spear intersection, and there is ample room for queueing.
The thinking is that the turn lane would encourage higher speeds. The data is based on a traffic
counter on Swift Street in 2020. Mr. Langan noted that was during the pandemic lockdown
when Spear Street was “pleasant” for a while.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 4
Mr. Rowe said they are only now getting back to 2008 levels, and there are much more modest
growth factors now than pre-2008. He added that Mr. Dickinson would be available to come in
to discuss his analysis. Mr. Albrecht asked whether the turn lane had been required because of
numbers. Mr. Rowe said it was Justin Rabidoux’s request. Mr. Behr said he hears both sides
and is not prepared to make a decision tonight. Mr. Albrecht asked if the Board can get raw
traffic count data. Members reviewed the numbers given. Mr. Rowe said the volumes were
extended to 2027 including full buildout. Mr. Kochman said his experience with traffic studies
to trust his “on the ground” feel more than a technical analysis. He felt that in the long term it
will be better for Spear Street to have a turn lane.
Ms. Wyman said she understands where Mr. Langan is coming from, but tends to go with the
numbers. She noted there is a big push to multi-modal, and by expanding pavement they
would be negating that thought. She also said it could be dangerous if someone tried to pass
cars that are queueing for a turn. Mr. Langan said he understands not wanting to expand
pavement, but there is a real concern with people cutting around the bike path, which is the
reason for the turn lane there. He stressed that 2020 was a “ghost town” on Spear Street, and
there are many more developments using that road now. Mr. Albrecht asked what changed
Mr. Rabidoux’s mind. Ms. Keene said she thought it was the position of the city. The vision is
not to design a road for use of other communities but for South Burlington use. Ms. Wyman
asked if there will be a barrier in the new plan between the road and the rec path. Ms. Keene
said there will not. Mr. Farrell felt there will be more interfacing with the rec path if there is a
turn lane. He felt the problem is more at the intersection with Swift Street because the roads
are not aligned. He said left turn lanes cause more problems than they solve. Mr. Kochman
said that without that turn lane, people will drive onto the bike path.
Mr. Behr said he felt the Board can handle this decision in deliberation. Mr. Albrecht said he
would like to see traffic counts on an annual basis for both ways on Spear Street. Ms. Keene
said that information is available.
#2. Staff asked that utilities in the right-of-way be modified. Mr. Rowe said both GMP
and Telecom want to be outside the right-of-way. Easements will be given to them for that.
GMP is typically a 10-foot wide easement adjacent to the right-of-way.
#3. Regarding screening criteria, Ms. Keene showed the approved 2017 plan which
shows a berm with trees on it. She noted the applicant proposes to remove the berm. The
issue is that landscaping is required when two sites are “dissimilar.” She showed the LDR rule.
Mr. Kochman said the rule does not require screening. Ms. Keene agreed. Mr. Kochman said
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 5
he was inclined to go with staff’s recommendation but has an issue with the language.
Members agreed to go with staff’s recommendation.
#4. Regarding the re-routing of the drainage, Mr. Rowe noted that what will be the back
of the homes would be where water is discharged. The new proposal is to pipe drainage to the
catch basin. Members were OK with this.
Ms. Philibert then moved to close SD-21-41. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-21-25 of Green Mountain Development Group,
Inc., for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling
units and up to 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The phase consists of two 4-story multi-
family residential buildings on lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units, of which
79 are proposed inclusionary units, and two city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive:
Ms. Philibert noted that she owns a townhouse in the Hillside development but said it would
not affect her decision making.
Ms. Philibert also noted that staff has provided a draft decision and also some areas for
discussion.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding the inclusionary units, staff wants to be sure there are enough in each
building so they are integrated. There should be at least 10 inclusionary and 5 market rate
units in each building. Mr. Gill was concerned with the difference between “inclusionary” and
“affordable”. Ms. Keene said this is applicable to the entire area of the preliminary plat, and
staff’s intention is the same as the applicant’s. Mr. Gill said they would prefer the use of
“affordable.” The language becomes difficult because of things like bedrooms. He said the
units that Mr. Getz builds will have the same number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units as in
the market rate units in the next building that is built. Mr. Kochman asked how they get
assurance of the number of bedrooms in the affordable units. Mr. Gill said the criteria will be
evaluated with the 3rd or 4th building constructed. The Board could then require more
affordable units to equal the number of bedrooms. As an alternative, the inclusionary units in
each building could have a required number of bedrooms. Ms. Keene said the concern is with
the applicant “painting themselves into a corner.” Mr. Gill said there will be 39 affordable units
when only 7 inclusionary units are required. He suggested basing the ratio on those 7 units.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 6
Ms. Keene read from the regulations that the average number of bedrooms shall equal the
ratio of the number of bedrooms in the market rate units. Mr. Gill said the problem is you
don’t know how many bedrooms there will be in the market rate units because they aren’t built
yet. Mr. Langfeldt said the challenge occurs because they are leading with the affordable units.
Mr. Getz said if you stick with the same approach as in the Preliminary Plat, the applicant won’t
get the 5th building if the affordable housing isn’t met. Mr. Langfeldt said the reason for that
was the vagueness of the affordable housing financing process. He felt there is a minimal risk
here because a shortage can be made up in the 5th building. Mr. Kochman asked what happens
if that building never gets built. Mr. Gill said you will then have a huge excess of affordable
units. He suggested that the solution is that every zoning permit qualify as meeting the test of
the mean average. Ms. Mann said the suggestion is to qualify the 7 inclusionary units as they
come on line, and once those units are qualified they would remain the qualified units. Mr. Gill
said that makes perfect sense.
#2. Mr. Gill said they have modified the landscaping to address sight distance issues.
#3. Mr. Getz said they are fine with the improvements to the pocket park.
#4. Mr. Gill said they submitted a lighting plan with all the details and will provide spec
sheets, if needed. He added that all the poles will be 14 feet high.
#5. Staff questioned whether the ramps should be removed. Ms. Keene noted they
were never in the plans and were a recommendation of the traffic consultant. There were to
be ramps from the rec path to the sidewalk. Staff was concerned they would cause more harm
than good. All agreed to remove them.
#6. Regarding maintenance of landscaping in the right-of-way, Ms. Keene noted the
Board did not like the idea of the applicant contributing to the city for maintenance. They can
maintain that landscaping on their own with the caveat that if they don’t maintain it, the city
can remove it. The city will want a Memorandum of Understanding for that. Mr. Gill said they
are fine with that. Mr. Albrecht asked if the planting in the right-of-way contributes to the
landscape budget. Ms. Keene said it does not. Mr. Albrecht said he was OK with it then.
#7. Mr. Gill said they sent a clearer, updated spreadsheet today.
#8. Regarding credit for the silva cells, Ms. Philibert said she felt the Board should allow
the credit because they contribute to healthier trees. Members were OK with this.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 FEBRUARY 2022
PAGE 7
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Members were asked if they had enough information to close the application. Mr. Kochman
asked about the mix of funding for the affordable units. Mr. Getz reviewed the various sources
of funding including 9% and 4% tax credits, Block Grant Application, one-time ARPA funds,
rebates, and Housing Investment Fund through VHA. He noted that the funding is different for
each building.
Mr. Kochman then moved to close SD-21-25. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
9. Minutes of 21 December 2021 and 4 January 2022:
Ms. Wyman noted that in the minutes of 21 December, she was recused from item #8 as well.
Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 21 December as amended. Mr. Behr seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 4 January 2022 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded.
Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Philibert abstaining.
10. Other Business:
Ms. Keene noted that the Board was without a Clerk. Mr. Behr volunteered to serve as Clerk.
Members unanimously approved his appointment.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:37 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 MARCH 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 2
March 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to
Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, F. Kochman, Q.
Mann
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E.
Langfeldt, A. Gill, R. & T. Davis, C. Lange, P. Boisvert, P. Simon, L. Lamphere, X. Zhang, D. Ray, T.
Cote, C. Frank, G. Dixson, Johnson, B. Cairns, L. Thayer, F. Socinski, A. Szaryk., Guest, J. Olesky,
N. Weeks, S. Breston, E. Woodmansee, J. O’Hara, K. DesRoches, S. Butler, R. Dickinson, S.
Brutzman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Instructions on emergency exit from the building were provided.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear Street FJT, LLC, for a
planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7,000 sq. ft.
storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of
one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four-family buildings, a 1.24 acre lot
containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be
converted to a duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear
Street:
Staff advised that the applicant asked for a continuation. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-
21-19 to 5 April 2022. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 2
Master Plan Application #MP-22-01 of O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, to amend a previously
approved planned unit development to develop 39.76 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling
units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The amendment consists of adding limited
neighborhood commercial use, 255 Kennedy Drive:
Mr. Langfeldt explained that this is the next phase of the Hillside project and is on lots 13 and
15. Mr. Gill said they are asking for a small neighborhood commercial use, and this must be
shown in the Master Plan.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff noted that the Board must agree to waive submission requirements. Members
voiced no opposition to this request.
#2. Staff noted there is no vesting to be established as it was not in effect when the plan
was approved. No objection was voiced to this.
#3. Staff noted there was no standard for duration; however, Phase 2 does set a
duration. The applicant was asked to confirm that no supplemental or change in duration be
established. The applicant was OK with this.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr then moved to close MP-22-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Site Plan Application #SP-22-007 of DS Realty, LLC, to amend a previously approved
site plan for an artist production studio and restaurant. The amendment consists of
constructing an accessory structure for licensed non-residential daycare use,
expanding the parking area, and changing the mix of uses, 916 Shelburne Road:
The applicant explained that they will demo the existing carriage house and replace it 3 feet to
the west. They will also expand parking and add landscaping. The proposed program already
exists with 20 students which will increase to 26 students in the new building.
Staff comments were then addressed:
#1. Regarding the traffic overlay district, Ms. Keene noted that additional information
was received today. The earlier closing and pick-up time results in an adjustment. Mr. Simon
noted they closing time does not coincide with the peak hour. Ms. Keene said there is a trip
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 3
limit of 26 trips; if they go over that, they have do some adjustments. They may not go over
that number because of the earlier time is off-peak. If that is so, there should be a physical
reason the facility cannot be open after 3 p.m. Ms. Keene felt there needs to be more work on
this with the applicant and staff. Mr. Kochman asked about a possible stipulation that everyone
has to be out by 3:45. Ms. Keene said the issue is enforcement. Mr. Kochman asked why the
Board should be harder on them than on other developers where there is “dubious
enforcement.” Mr. Davis said they would be very comfortable with an approval condition so
they don’t have to do a full traffic study. Ms. Davis said they have some after-school classes
with pickup for those 16 students between 5:30 and 6 p.m. Mr. Kochman suggested a
condition that the after school use shall not exceed 16 students.
#2. Staff is asking that the applicant coordinate with VTrans to determine whether
mitigation is required. Ms. Keene noted that staff has heard from VTrans.
#3. Regarding circulation/access, staff is asking that the Board determine whether a
direct connection to the Shelburne Road sidewalk should be required for anyone arriving other
than by car. Ms. Davis said people on bikes arrive through a break in the hedge where it is
safer. That break is also used when they take children to the park. Ms. Keene said the urban
overlay district would require the sidewalk to Shelburne Road, but they are not in that district.
She stressed the need for safe access to abutting properties. Members said what the applicant
is proposing is safer, and they were OK with it.
#4. Staff is recommending that they DRB require water/sewer permits and grease
interception. Mr. Boisvert said they have water and sewer permits. There is a reduction in
demand. Mr. DiPietro is OK with the greasetrap. Ms. Keene acknowledged receipt of the water
permit.
#5. Staff asked for more information regarding the dumpster. She showed the
applicant’s response and photo. Members were OK with that.
#6. Regarding off-street loading and parking, staff is asking for a driveway connection to
adjacent lots and feel this provision is not met for the property to the south. That requirement
would necessitate relocation of some parking spaces. Mr. Simon showed a plan with the
easement connection that staff requires. Mr. Boisvert said it is an L-shaped connection in the
southwest corner. He also said it is unlikely that anyone would want to use it. Ms. Keene said
they are not recommending that it be built. Board members had no issue with what the
applicant proposes.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 4
#7. Regarding parking angles, staff is asking the applicant to reduce the width of the
aisle to reduce the impervious surface. The applicant felt this makes sense since they are
redoing the access. They are providing more green space than what is now there. The revised
plan shows 24 feet. Members were OK with this.
#8. Staff indicated the applicant has not met the requirements for bike parking and
storage. Mr. Simon showed a 10-foot bike rack. Ms. Keene said the rack does not meet the
regulations. Ms. Hall said they can get credit for that but only for 4 bikes. It must be anchored
to the ground. Ms. Keene said they need 2 long-term spaces as well. The applicant agreed to
provide space on the ground floor with changing lockers. Ms. Keene said this can be an
approval condition.
#9. Staff indicated a need for 10% of parking to have landscaped islands. This should be
located to preserve mature trees. Mr. Simon said they don’t feel this criteria applies as they
don’t have a double circulation lane. They also have an enhanced buffer area. Staff asked the
Board to think carefully about this as this situation is not often seen. Ms. Keene drew on the
plan were/how an island could be done. Mr. Davis said there are 21 contiguous spaces along
the southern area. Mr. Behr said the DRB has always reviewed the number of parking spaces in
an area, and there are 28 proposed spaces in a field of parking. They need to be broken with an
island. Mr. Langan said the regulations say when they say. What the applicant has is not 28
contiguous spaces. He didn’t feel that regulations was open to interpretation. Mr. Albrecht
disagreed and said the aim is not have a sea of asphalt, and 28 spaces is the threshold. Mr.
Kochman said he supports staff’s interpretation. Mr. Boisvert asked if they took away a parking
space and put landscaping there, would it be OK. Mr. Davis said he just read the regulations,
and there is ambiguity there. Ms. Davis said there are already islands in the parking. They
could leave one. Mr. Davis noted that 10% would be 7 parking spaces. Mr. Behr explained
what is counted, and said they can probably meet it with one space.
#10. The City Arborist felt the landscape value seemed high. Ms. Keene said staff had
asked for the dogwoods and cornflowers to be further off, and they are now shown that way.
#11 and #12: Regarding additional deciduous trees to be planted, Ms. Keene showed
the plan the applicant has provided. Mr. Simon indicated the additional trees/shrubs. He asked
for some credit for 9 existing perimeter trees. They have added 3 more. Mr. Albrecht asked
about some mature trees to be removed. Mr. Simon noted some pines which have to be
removed for grading for handicapped accessibility. He indicated those on the plan. He added
that they are more than double what is required. He also showed a photo of what landscaping
that will remain. The existing fence and play area will also remain as will everything on the east
side. Two pines at the end of the parking area will be removed. Staff asked for protection for
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 5
the existing tree on the eastern edge. Mr. Simon said they will reduce the space for the turn-
around to provide room for that tree.
#13. The applicant was asked to identify the snow storage area so it doesn’t affect
stormwater. Mr. Simon showed this on the plan. Mr. Albrecht was worried the snow pile
would keep increasing. Ms. Keene said snow storage is hard to enforce. They could say the top
left and lower right are OK for snow storage. She outlined these areas on the plan.
#14. Staff noted parking is not screened from Shelburne Road, and opportunities exist
for that. Mr. Simon said they added a row of high bus blueberries there.
#15. Regarding screening of the parking lot and play area, Mr. Simon documented trees
that are already there and noted the cedar hedge is significant. Ms. Keene said the DRB has
chosen not to rely on screening on adjacent properties. Mr. Simon said they are providing
additional landscaping on the east and southeast boundaries. He noted there are trees on both
sides of the property line.
#16. Staff requested a revised landscape budget. Mr. Simon showed the revised budget,
and Ms. Keene was OK with it.
#17. Regarding external lighting, Ms. Keene noted a building-mounted light that is not
shielded or downcasting. Though it is a nice fixture, it will have to be changed.
#18. The plan does not meet the standard for buffering on the south and southeast.
The applicant indicated the buffer strip is over 30 feet deep, exceeding the 15 foot
requirement. Ms. Keene said the standard requires 65 feet for the principal building. It does
not apply to the carriage house. Lighting/landscaping and screening should equal what would
have been provided by a 65 foot setback and 15 foot buffer. Mr. Kochman asked what is
“equivalent.” Ms. Keene said it is subjecting. Mr. Kochman noted a big hedge on the south
side. Mr. Simon said they enhanced the shrubs on the east side.
#19. Regarding roof standards, Ms. Lange said the building roof is solar ready and
complies with all energy standards.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Brutzman didn’t think the photos gave a perspective of the impact because of the trees
coming down. She felt that would open up visibility of the whole Davis property. She also said
the cedars don’t come close to the residential property. She said that at sketch, they were told
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 6
the trees would be protected; now they find they are coming down. It didn’t seem to her there
was protection of residential property from commercial use. Ms. Keene said the Board needs
to discuss this in deliberative session.
Mr. Behr said he was most concerned about the separation of uses and would like to see as
much screening as possible. Mr. Kochman shared that concern. He also felt “subjective” was a
weak response and specific criteria are needed. Other members agreed. Mr. Albrecht said if
this were a brand new construction, there would be a more robust discussion, but it is tricky
because of the existing use.
Mr. Behr then moved to continue SP-22-007 to 5 April. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-
0.
7. Site Plan Application #SP-22-004 of Champlain Oil Company, LLC, to amend a
previously approved plan for a mixed commercial use building on an existing 0.68 acre
lot. The amendment consists of increasing the square footage from 13.818 sq. ft. to
19.168 sq. ft. by adding one and a half stories, adding 9 residential units, and
expanding the array of allowed commercial uses, 510 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Cairns said they had an approval in 2020 for a commercial building, 2-1/2 floors of
commercial and commercial retail. They were delayed due to COVID and are coming back with
an idea to add 9 residential units. Mr. Albrecht asked how the building compares with the
building to the north. Mr. Cairns said it is larger.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding the purchase of TDRs, Ms. Thayer asked if this is an amendment to an
approved site plan whether the standard applies. Mr. Cote noted they were approved without
a TDR, and they have less coverage now than they had then. Ms. Keene noted the DRB granted
a waiver on overall lot coverage which was in error. Ms. Thayer said they worked with staff and
there are 2 options: TDRs or open space. They will be pursuing the open space option. Ms.
Keene said that is OK. She showed the plan and indicated the park area. The applicant said if
they get a tenant that wants outside storage, they may go back to the TDR option. Ms. Keene
said both options are allowed. She showed the regulations for a “snippet park.”
#2. Staff noted that some requested uses are not compatible. Ms. Keene said “cannabis
dispensary” will be stricken from the regulations and will be replaced. The applicant can apply
for this in the future if the regulations change. The term “cannabis dispensary” is no longer
acceptable. The applicant was OK with the other exclusions.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 7
#3-#6. Regarding glazing, Mr. Cote said it was hard to know about transparency until
they get tenants. They will meet the standards when they get a tenant. He showed the
elevations and noted that all glazing is over 7 feet high.
#7. Regarding screening of rooftop elements, Mr. Cote said they don’t have full
mechanical design, but they will meet the standard. Mr. Cairns said they will meet the
screening with some metal façade siding. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a height waiver. Ms.
Keene said there is no height limit. Mr. Albrecht asked if rooftop decks are allowed. Mr. Cairns
said they are, but he didn’t think they would go that route as they would rather not have
residents waking on the roof.
#8. The parking area width is not met. Ms. Thayer said she believed there was an error
in the staff calculation. They have 152 feet of building width. Ms. Keene said that is correct.
#9. The applicant was asked to describe the easement requirements. Ms. Thayer said it
is a 50-foot access easement which benefits Champlain Oil. It is mean to provide access to
Farrell St. They haven’t changed the easement and are consistent with the requirements. They
also moved the access to a safer location. Mr. Albrecht asked if there will be screening
between this property and Walgreens. Ms. Thayer said there will. There is a curbed island and
vegetation.
#10. Regarding bike storage, Mr. Cote said they meet the requirements. The room will
be accessible to commercial tenants.
#11. Ms. Thayer said they have approval of the City of Burlington for the crabapples.
#12. The applicant was asked to demonstrate the landscape islands meet the criteria.
Ms. Thayer show the plan and indicated the islands. Mr. Behr said it was fine if it meets the
10%.
#13. Staff has concerns regarding preservation of perennial plantings. Ms. Keene said
staff is having to go out each year and confirm those plantings. She suggested a “value per
square feet of perennials.” Mr. Kochman said that is throwing out a hard monetary standard.
Ms. Hall said over time the value of plants increases. Mr. Behr said he wasn’t opposed to it, but
it could be subjective. Members agreed to “let it stew.”
Mr. Albrecht asked about stormwater management. Mr. Johnson said there are 4 treatment
areas eventually connected with a manhole on Shelburne Road. He showed the location.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 8
#14. Staff asked about compliance with roof energy standards. Mr. Cote said it is their
standard practice to design with an additional 8 pounds of load.
Mr. Kochman asked about the deed issue. Mr. Cairns reviewed the history.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-004. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Site Plan Application #SP-22-003 of RHTL Partners, LLC, to modify a previously
approved plan for a 10,000 sq. ft. automotive sales, service and repair building on an
existing 2.61 acre lot. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,155 sq. ft. building
expansion, 1795 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Olesky said this is the existing Mazda dealership, retail and service, with parking to the
north. They will be rebranding and doing 3,000 sq. ft. of building expansion. They will
redevelop a portion of the parking lot. The additional space will be used for showroom, a
canopy to cover cars in the service area, outdoor seating area and landscaping improvements.
There will be no increase in employees.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The entryway must face the primary road, and this is not met. Ms. Butler said the
existing design has the entry to the side. She noted a steep bank to the sidewalk which would
make an entrance there unfeasible. She added that there is a lot of glazing that will indicate
the access. Ms. Keene said that doesn’t work, but it could be a corner door. Mr. Olesky cited
the hardship and said they are tied to the site topography. There is a 7-8 foot elevation change
from Shelburne Road. Mr. Albrecht said the rules are very strict. Ms. Keene said there are
some waiver options, but she didn't feel this situation meets those requirements. Mr. Olesky
said it doesn’t make sense to do that in an ADA compliant way. You would exit facing a 7-8 foot
bank. Ms. Keene suggested stairs. Mr. Behr said they didn’t have to have an ADA ramp, just
something to accommodate someone walking down the street.
#2. Regarding glazing, Ms. Butler said there will be clear vision into the building.
#3. Regarding screening of rooftop equipment, Ms. Butler said they are raising the
parapet 18 inches which will screen rooftop equipment.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 9
#4. Regarding a cornice, Ms. Butler said they do not have a cornice, but there are reveal
lines which is part of “contemporary design.” Mr. Kochman noted the regulations say “such as
a cornice.” Mr. Behr said that is the current trend and was done across the street. Something
that projects out 4-6 inches would work. Ms. Butler said a “pop out” can be accomplished.
#5. The applicant was asked to describe the materials and their relationship to
structures on the area. Mr. Cote said the building next door is concrete and metal with a
pitched room, and this building will be comparable.
#6. Regarding the dumpster, Ms. Butler said they will build a new dumpster enclosure.
#7. Staff feels access management is not met for the property to the south and asked
for an easement to comply. Mr. Olesky said their main concern is the western portion of the
building is the primary access to the service area, dumpster, etc. He didn’t know if there would
be enough benefit from it. Ms. Keene said it doesn’t have to be used; it is just for future use if
there is a change. Mr. Olesky said they can look at easement lines for future use. He noted
they are getting to the point where 25% of property is encumbered by easements. Ms. Keene
said it is just an easement to access the paved area, 30’x20’ square on the corner. Mr. Olesky
said it is not a problem as long as it doesn’t impede the use.
#8. Ms. Keene said this item has been met.
#9. Staff notes the landscape budget is not met and suggested landscaping at the
perimeter of the lot. Mr. Olesky said they got some additional information today and will revise
the budget to meet the standard. He questioned hardscape features that could count and cited
the new patio/seating area and whether that would count. Mr. Behr said it has to be an
enhancement above a “utilitarian construction.”
#10. Regarding curbing around the pump station, Mr. Olesky suggested a couple of
bollards and landscaping around them if the intent is to protect vegetation from snow removal.
#11, #12, and #13 have been met.
#14. Regarding stormwater comments, Mr. Olesky said they have been in contact with
Public Works and will comply with what they require. He noted the property to the west are
required to do some things; if they don’t this property will have to do a retrofit.
#15. Regarding exterior lighting, Ms. Butler said there will be no building-mounted
lighting.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 10
Ms. Hall said that with regard to temporary structures and a temporary tent during
construction, the applicant should prepare a “temporary page,” so it can be part of the
approval.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-003 to 19 April. Ms. Mann seconded. The motion passed 6-
0.
9. Site Plan Application #SP-22-006 of Reperio Properties to demolish an existing light
manufacturing and retail complex and construct a 4,480 sq. ft. extension to an existing
licensed care facility on the adjacent lot. The subject parcel is an existing 0.71 acre lot,
1459 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Keene said the plan is to tear down the monument business and replace it with more
daycare.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Ms. Keene said the transparent glazing can be worked out.
#2. Regarding compatibility with surrounding structures, Mr. Behr said he felt this plan is
more harmonious with existing buildings, and he was OK with it.
#3. Staff noted there is no sidewalk connection to the bike rack or main entrance. Mr.
Albrecht felt as long as there is a bike rack, it is OK. Ms. DesRoches said the entrance is
pedestrian accessible. Mr. Albrecht said it meets the standard.
Regarding landscaping, staff noted that $23,550 is required, and only $7,300 is being provided.
The applicant agreed to work with staff on this. Mr. Behr noted that the patio could be applied
to the landscape budget. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has gone above and beyond to retain
a tree and questioned how much credit to apply for that. She will work on a proposal.
Remaining issues were either addressed or, due to the late hour, will be worked out with staff.
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-006 to 5 April. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 11
10. Minutes of 18 January, 2 February & 15 February 2022:
Due to the late hour, members agreed to delay approval of minutes until the next meeting.
11. Other Business:
No other business was bought forth.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:48 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on