Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 13_2022-05-17 DRB Minutes DRAFTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 May 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, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; N. Weeks, S. O’Brien, Sally, S. Butler, D. Wheeler, C. Frank, J. Olesky, E. Woodmansee, L. Bailey, D. Ray, S. & L. Marriott, A. LeBlanc, CEA-VT Office, F., T., and S. Cresta, Nick, Cathy’s green ipad, R. Cooper, C. Proutt, C. Knauf, J. Bartolo, C. Gingras, D. Marshall, T. McKenzie, A. Rowe, D. Mahaffey, K. Sipples, A. Toll, B. Cooper, R. Simpson 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on 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. Keene advised that new DRB member John Sterns will join the Board in June. Ms. Keene also explained sign-in procedures. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-22-023 of city of South Burlington to construct a stormwater treatment facility partially within a wetland buffer, 95 Swift Street: Ms. Gingras identified the area as part of the Potash restoration project in 2016. In 2018, the city applied for grant funding to construct a new collection system on Lindenwood and relocating the system on Brewer Parkway. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 2 #1. Staff asked whether the project is the minimum size necessary to achieve the treatment of the runoff. Ms. Gingras said it cannot be shallower because the furthest catch basin is only 2 feet below the surface, which is the minimum. She showed the plan and identified the existing catch basin within a residential backyard. Mr. Kochman asked if there is detriment to the habitat block. Ms. Keene explained the rules for development in a habitat block. Clearing is limited the minimum necessary. Ms. Gingras noted that a number of stormwater ponds have a benefit to habitat. This design has a fence around it. #2. Staff noted that the fence does not meet the wildlife passage criteria. Ms. Gingras said it was put there for safety of children on the rec path. Ms. Keene said the fence should allow wildlife passage which this one does not. She showed the habitat block on the plan and suggested possibly having the fence only along the rec path. Mr. Kochman suggested an opening at each end. Mr. Albrecht suggested eliminating the mesh. He favored enough fencing to keep a child from falling into the pond. Mr. Behr suggested a split rail fence only along the rec path side with no mesh. Ms. Gingras felt that would work. #3. The Board was asked to consider a waiver of the requirement to provide fencing along the wetland buffer to protect it. Ms. Keene indicated the buffer and noted that the DRB can waive this regulation. Staff feels demarcation of the buffer is the tree line and suggests waiving the fence requirement. Members agreed. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. & Mrs. Marriott said they own property adjacent to the dry ponds. Their basement is right there, and they don’t want to get water in their basement. They do support the change to regrade the 150 feet of Lindenwood where the puddle problem has occurred. Ms. Gingras explained the regrading and said they have added a partial pond liner near the house. The engineer is aware of the issue. Mr. Kochman asked if someone can say there will be no problem for Marriott’s basement. Mr. Wheeler said the engineer did infiltration testing, and there was zero inches per hour. The water won’t be in the storm basin for long, and they didn’t encounter any ground water. He would say if there hasn’t been flooding in the basement, there won’t be now. He noted they could have put in a full liner, but the neighborhood didn’t want that. Mr. Marriott said the partial liner seems the best solution. Mr. Behr then moved to close SP-22-023. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 3 6. Appeal #AO-22-01 of Robert Cooper appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to issue a zoning permit for the site improvements on a single family lot, 410 Golf Course Road: The interested parties in this appeal were identified as: Robert Cooper, Charlie Proutt, Cynthia Knauf, Fernando and Tracy Cresta, and Jillian Bartolo. Ms. Hall said the Appellant has cited Section 14.11 of the LDRs as a standard used on the 8 March 21 permit issued for work at 410 Golf Course Road. Ms. Hall said that in October, she began receiving calls regarding this work (she showed a photo of the work on the site). When she visited the site, she realized the work was more extensive than what had been described in the original application for a permit. She sent the Crestas a letter asking for more information on the work and asked them to stop the work and secure the site from erosion. They were agreeable and provided information on 22 January 2022. They broke the work into 2 types: exterior landscape and home renovations. After discussions on 22 March, Ms. Hall said she issued a permit for the work. She then showed a picture of what the site looked like prior to the work. She identified the mounded boulder feature being changed to a patio-terraces. The Crestas were putting in retaining walls and redoing the decks. Section 14.11(f)(1) was used as a basis for the permit for the exterior hardscape work. Ms. Hall read that section from the LDRs and explained what language she used in making her determination. Mr. Cooper, the appellant, said he is the owner of the neighboring property at 6 Park Road. He said that by the time Ms. Hall came to the property, most of the work had been completed (moving of dirt, new roof, siding, grading, cement staircase, etc.). He then showed a site plan and indicated the location of his home and the area where fill was placed, which he is objecting to. He said that if this is considered a “structure,” where fill is being used, he feels this falls under “structures requiring setbacks” and “accessory structures and used.” He said the construction is now on his property line causing runoff, and if it is considered a structure, there should be a 5-foot setback. Mr. Kochman said if fill is incidental to a structure, the fill is not a structure. Mr. Cooper said he is questioning whether the fill is supporting the house. Mr. Cooper said the permit indicates replacement of existing walkways, patio, grading, etc. He showed pictures and said there is no existing grading, and the new grading is the same height as the fence that used to be there and doesn’t follow the property line. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Cooper said the Crestas have taken out just about every tree on their lot. He showed pictures and said the prior grading was the same on both sides of the fence. Mr. Kochman asked what Mr. Cooper did not believe was a structure. Mr. Cooper said “what is on our property line.” Mr. Kochman said the regulation says fill is permitted when “…incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot…” Mr. Albrecht asked for a definition of “structure.” Ms. Keene read from the regulations that a structure includes buildings, mobile homes, swimming pools, tennis courts, antennas, satellite dishes, sheds, trailers, billboards, signs, walls and fences. A structure does not include paved surfaces such as patios, sidewalks and parking lots. Mr. Cooper then presented several exhibits. The first was of the permit listing “final grading with 8-12” of new topsoil. He felt this has nothing to do with structures and is more than 20 cubic yards. The second was a photo showing topsoil sitting at the lower end of the lot which he also feels is more than 20 cubic yards. Mr. Cooper said that topsoil was used to create a convex mounding on the lot. He felt this should have been reviewed by the DRB. Ms. Philibert noted that the 20 cubic yards doesn’t apply when it is incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. Ms. Hall said she stands firm on the “incidental” nature of the fill as there was hardscape work going on all over the property. The Crestas build a terrace, patio, landscape structure, techno block edge, and retaining walls. Mr. Cooper said another concern is the degree of the slope that has been causing water runoff. He showed a picture and indicated the property line. He felt that fill had been pushed onto their property. He added that their experts said that due to the grade and compacting that covered the culvert, they are recipients of runoff. He indicated 3 concerns raised by their expert: water runoff down a slope of more than 50 degrees, aesthetics of the significant grade change, and the lack of a “seamless environment.” Ms. Knopf, the Crestas’ landscape architect, said the main objective of the project was to update and restore existing landscaping that had deteriorated and become unsafe. There also was no well-drained base beneath the patio/stairs. Overall, they wanted to create a beautiful, safe environment. Ms. Cresta said they wanted to stay with the same lot coverage and elevations. She showed the plan. Ms. Knopf said they did a topographical survey. She indicated the location of replacement structures and the elevations, past and present. She stressed that elevations have not changed except in one place. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 5 Ms. Cresta said the neighbors to the north and west have flat areas. She added that they didn’t bring in fill to equal that flatness though they had originally planned to and now intended to omit bringing in soil to raise the grade to equal that of the neighbors. They will just bring in topsoil and plant grass. Ms. Cresta noted they have rebuilt the stairs, and section of the grading is higher as it is a planting bed at the east of the patio (she indicated this on the plan). Ms. Knopf said the 90-degree slope was only during construction. They would never leave a 90- degree slope. Ms. Cresta showed a picture of the previous patio and blue stone steps that have been replaced. She showed a picture of the new steps. She noted that where there used to be boulders, there will now be a garden. She also noted that the direction of the steps has been altered. Ms. Knopf added that they brought in drainage stone to go under the stairs, etc., for proper construction. Ms. Cresta said that with regard to Mr. Cooper’s runoff concerns, there have been heavy rains with no sign of puddling, pooling, flooding, or debris happening on his property. The swale is still working. She stressed that they went “above and beyond” to insure there was no runoff. Mr. Albrecht asked the distance from the edge of the wood deck to the property line. Ms. Knoph said it is 10’6”. Mr. Albrecht asked if any dirt or gravel extending onto the adjoining property. Ms. Cresta said there is not. Mr. Behr asked if the question of the unpermitted work was rectified. Ms. Hall said that in January, the Crestas submitted all work and split it into 2 permits which were issued as “after the fact” permits. Was all the work that was done permitted. Ms. Hall said it was. Mr. Cooper said they are appealing the legality of the permit allowing regrading with 8-10 inches of topsoil. Ms. Cresta said they are not going to do that part of the permit. Ms. Hall said it is not unusual for people not to do all of what is in a permit. The permit is good for a year, then expires. Mr. Behr asked if 8-10 inches of topsoil was allowable. Ms. Hall said it was. Members were then OK to close the hearing. Mr. Albrecht moved to close #AO-22-01. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 4-2 with Mr. Kochman and Ms. Mann voting in the negative. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 6 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-23-003 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 noted the changes since the last review. a. In response to the Board’s request for a front entry door, they have added one on the east side. A 10-foot wide sidewalk has been added to access that door. b. The northeast corner of the patio was redone to be more inviting. c. The Board had also asked for coping and this was added around the building. d. They have added the dumpster location and enclosed it with fencing. e. Landscaping has been supplemented significantly f. They added a 20’x20’ easement at the southwest corner for a potential connection to the property to the south. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the front entry, Mr. Olesky said they added a double front door facing Shelburne Road. He showed a 3-D conceptual drawing and indicated the brick pavers leading to that door. Mr. Behr said that just putting in a double-glass door doesn’t do it for him. It is not a main entrance anyone will use as nothing says it is a front door (portico, etc.). The applicant said they are dealing with an existing building, and they can’t make that entrance more primary due to the slope. He cited the vehicle display and noted that 99% of people will use the north door because they will be parking there and would not walk an additional 75 feet to a door in front. That door would be only for pedestrian access, if any. The applicant added that this building is unique in that you can’t see that portion of the building from Shelburne Road because of the steepness. The building was designed prior to the regulations. Mr. Behr read from the regulations as to what a “front door” should be and said the door should meet the regulations even if it isn’t used. It should be a “focal point of the front façade,” accented with awnings, porticos, etc. Mr. Kochman said that regulations is ridiculous. He noted the last sentence reads that this “this requirement does not preclude additional principal entry doors” and said you can’t have two principal entry doors. Ms. Keene said they could create a principal entry at the corner, but their ownership says they can’t. The applicant noted you can’t have people walking under a car on a lift. They also cited the ambiguity of the rule and said they feel it allows the side entrance to be primary. Mr. Kochman suggested just adding an awning. Ms. Butler said they will have to see what Mazda will allow. #2. Regarding the walkway, Mr. Olesky said there is no change to what was proposed. Mr. Behr suggested moving the stairs so they align with the door. That would be more DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 7 indicative of a pedestrian friendly front door. Mr. Olesky said they considered that but did not want to impact the vegetation there. There is also a steep dropoff there. #3. Staff asked whether the Board is OK with the metal coping. Mr. Behr said he was OK with it. #4. Regarding the easement, this was shown on the plan. The applicant said they will record that easement. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SP-23-0030 to 7 June 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Due to the late hour, the Board asked to continue the remaining items on the agenda. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-22-06 of South Burlington City Center, LLC, to subdivide a 5.86 acre parcel into 3 lots ranging in size from 0.36 to 3.62 acres for the purpose of subdividing the lands of a storm pond, future street, and a development, 0 Market Street: Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-06 to 7 June 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-22-019 and Conditional Use Application #CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School to amend a previously approved plan for a general office building. The amendment consists of converting to an educational facility as a use and minor site modifications, 55 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Albrecht moved to continue SP-22-019 and CU-22-03 to 7 June 2022. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Minutes of 29 March and 4 May 2022: Ms. Wyman noted she was present at the 4 May meeting. Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 29 March and 4 May 2022 as written and/or amended as above. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Other Business: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 MAY 2022 PAGE 8 No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.