HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_Draft Minutes
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20
September 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. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S.
Wyman
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; C. Snyder, A. Rowe, R. Greco, B. Hoar,
G. Henderson-King, J. Langford, B. Armstrong, A. Bond, K. Wooster, D. Read, M. Dussault, M.
Tyler, A. Chalnick, B. Kosoc, D. Rigosu, D. Leban, C. Mack, S. Greer, Andrew, J. Findlay-Shirras, D.
Keelty
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:
There were no announcements.
5. Appeal #AO-22-03 of Bruce Leavitt appealing the decision of the Zoning
Administrative Officer to issue a zoning permit for construction of two 2-family
homes, 29, 31, 39 and 41 Elm Street:
Ms. Philibert noted the inclusion of Ms. Keene’s written testimony in the meeting notes.
Ms. Keene noted that while there are specific definitions of height in the LDRs, there are no
specific instructions regarding the type of roof. She said her decision was based on past
practice. She showed the calculation with the average grade being subtracted from the
average roof height. She also noted the applicant has a building with a flat foundation, but the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
grade around it is not flat, and they had to make an adjustment for that. Ms. Keene said her
calculation takes that into account. The final height, including the adjustment, is 26.567 feet.
Mr. Behr explained how building height is defined in the IRC and showed the elevations of the
houses. He explained where height is measured from and how you have to pick the main
building surfaces.
Mr. Albrecht said the LDRs say the maximum height is 28 feet. Ms. Keene asked whether the
IRC is to the highest or midpoint. Mr. Behr said “the highest roof surface midpoint.”
Mr. Kochman said he assumed if there were fill, it would have to be discounted. Ms. Keene said
that is an interesting question. The decision was made before her time, and did not say
whether previous or approved grade was to be used. Staff took the approved grade. She noted
that today they would have used the preconstruction grade.
Mr. Conner said the Board’s job is to determine whether the Zoning Administrator’s calculation
was correct. Mr. Kochman said that to get there, they need to know what average
preconstruction grade means and whether there was fill in this case. Ms. Keene said there was
fill. The Zoning Administrator said the Board approved the proposed grade as the average pre-
construction grade. Ms. Keene said that is not the nature of the appeal. The appeal is with the
calculation of the eaves.
Ms. Greco, a neighbor of the project, said she was representing the appellant who is out of the
country. She read a clarifying statement. She said the house looks much taller and is out of
character with other houses in the area. The appellant believes the height limit of 28 feet has
been exceeded based on using the uppermost eave, which they believe is how this should be
calculated. The developer used the lower eaves for their calculation which resulted in the
appellant’s belief that the height limit was exceeded. The appellant believes the Zoning
Administrator erred in granting the approval. Ms. Greco asked that the appeal be continued
until Mr. Leavitt returns.
Mr. Conner noted that one house is partially constructed at this time. Mr. Kochman asked if
the roof is completed.
Mr. Behr said his calculation is the same as the appellant’s. Mr. Albrecht noted that the
building code assumes that every roof is “neat little boxes.” Mr. Behr said that isn’t the case;
the code says to the highest point. Mr. Albrecht said that is what the LDRs say, but that
assumes everything was equal and not varying heights.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Mr. Kochman said there is more of an argument here than he originally thought.
Mr. Snyder, the developer, said they need to go back to the LDRs which clearly say there is an
average level between the eaves. They met with city staff to clarify that language, and then
they calculated the height. Mr. Rowe added that the height was calculated from the highest
peak. There were 2 eaves used, and those are the only ones that would apply. Others are
interrupted by gables, etc. He said they followed the plain language of the LDRs.
Mr. Albrecht asked if there has ever been a similar situation before now. Ms. Keene said it
“never previously mattered.” Mr. Conner said there has been a situation with one part of a
house higher than another, and they used the higher part, but that is a different question.
Ms. Greco noted a house on Pinnacle had to chop off a portion of the roof to meet the height
level. The only way this can be considered is if someone brings it to the attention of the city,
and only an abutter can do that. She felt there may be other houses in the city that exceed the
height limit.
Mr. Kochman said this is a very difficult problem as a policy matter. He noted the difference is
about a foot. He asked what the practical impact of this would be. Mr. Rowe said they
discussed this with city staff but haven’t considered what changes could or could not be done
to the roof line on the existing and future structures. Mr. Snyder said their perspective is that
they followed the LDRs and they shouldn’t have to do any modification. If staff and the Court
disagree with this, they would have to consider changes.
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Chalnick showed a picture of how the house looks from the road. You can’t see the back
eaves just the front eaves. He felt it doesn’t make sense to calculate from eaves you can’t see.
He added that the purpose of the regulations relates to how something looks.
Mr. Rowe said Elm Street is a public street. The peak elevation of the roof is visible from Spear
Street. He noted that the peak is not always front and center. Mr. Behr added that building
orientation is not part of the building code. It does not allow for perception.
Mr. Albrecht then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Conner advised that the Board will have 45 days to deliberate. Decisions will go to the
interested parties.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
6. Site Plan Application #SP-22-043 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to amend a previously
approved plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowed in
the zoning district. The amendment consists of removing 400 linear feet of
sidewalk and constructing approximately 550 feet of 10-ft. wide recreation path,
255 Kennedy Drive:
Ms. Philibert noted she has a condo in the Hillside neighborhood but did not feel it would affect
her ability to be impartial.
Mr. Gill showed the plan. He noted that in the Eastview project, the Board asked that the path
be continued through Hillside to Eldridge. This application is to do that construction. They
would remove the sidewalk and turn it into a recreation path.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding phasing, staff noted that this application is being proposed in the context
of the Eastview project. There is a request that the project doesn’t need to be completed until
the Eastview project is completed. The applicant does not want this approval to expire while
they are in Court regarding an appeal of Eastview. Ms. Keene noted that the Board can’t
include a condition in the Eastview application as to what happens in Hillside because the city
hasn’t yet taken over the road.
Mr. Behr said he supports the 7-year window. Ms. Keene said that can be done because it is a
PUD as long as it is in this approval and not in the Eastview approval.
Mr. Gill suggested saying the first zoning permit for Eastwood, just to be sure they are through
the appeals. Mr. Behr felt the Board could craft something.
Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP-22-043. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Site Plan Application #SP-22-045 of SRTB Holdings, LLC, to amend a previously
approved plan for an auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of
3,980 sq. ft. building addition on two facades, and associated site improvements,
1650 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Hoar said the plan is to expand the showroom and service drive.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff noted the need to revise the traffic calculation. Mr. Hoar said using the revised
method, they are at 67 trip ends, which is well within the allowable limit.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Ms. Philibert questioned whether there is handicapped access with the steps leading to the
showroom. Mr. Hoar said there will also be access on both sides with no steps.
#2. Regarding glazing, staff questioned whether the glazing is transparent. Mr. Tyler
said it is except for one part that is not. He showed this on the elevations.
#3. Staff expressed concern with achieving the appearance of being 2 stories. Mr. Hoar
said they were told they needed a 2-story approach. They then raised the building to achieve
this. He noted that the building is actually 2 stories. Mr. Behr said the proportions and massing
make it look like one story. He suggested possibly raising the windows up to make it look more
like 2 stories. Mr. Hoar said they are talking about opinions here. He noted that the buildings
near them don’t look like 2 stories, and this building actually is 2 stories which you can see from
Shelburne Road. Mr. Behr suggested going to 2 “strips” and raising the second floor windows 2
feet to provide more second floor glazing. The applicant said the LDRs are clear that the
building must have the appearance of 2 stories. They actually have 2 stories. Mr. Behr said he
thought raising the windows may actually be cheaper than what the applicant proposes.
#4. Mr. Hoar confirmed that the parapet will hide the mechanical equipment on the
roof.
#5. Regarding cornices, Mr. Hoar said they are not providing them as the most
important element is the glass. Mr. Behr said this is a ‘shall’ which means cornices are
required. He suggested solving this with a 6-inch cap with a 2-inch relief. It won’t distract from
the glass. The applicant was OK with that suggestion.
#6. Regarding cross connection between commercial lots, staff recommends that the
Board not require this. Mr. Gilles said staff felt that because of the grade change, it would be
best to waive the requirement. Ms. Keene noted the Board has consistently allowed waiving
this criteria.
#7. Staff recommends compliance with the recommendations of the City Arborist. Mr.
Hoar said he believes they do comply.
#8. Regarding snow storage areas, Mr. Hoar said they will store snow in the southeast
corner of the parking lot. This would displace a couple of sale vehicle spaces.
#9. Regarding landscaping minimum, staff questioned whether the applicant meets the
requirement. Ms. Philibert asked why mulch, loam, etc., don’t count toward the minimum. Ms.
Keene said the Board has historically felt only trees and shrubs count. However, they are
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
finding that many sites in the city are well landscaped, and the Board has allowed patios and
decorative grasses to count but not loam or lawns. The landscape plan was then shown. Mr.
Behr said the site is well landscaped. The only reason the dollar requirement is so high is that
they are rebuilding the building. He didn’t see where they could add plantings to meet the
budget. Mr. Hoar said they could add some ornamental grass near the stormwater feature.
Ms. Keene said hardscape areas are also an option. Mr. Hoar noted an existing display area and
suggested they might do another one. Ms. Keene noted there are some perennials and ground
cover which are not included in the list. She showed this area on the plan. Mr. Gillies noted the
property has 2 front yards and at least 50% of the landscaping should be in the larger of the 2
yards. There is already an existing nonconformity, and the Board should see how to address
this to have less of a nonconformity. Mr. Hoar suggested relocating 2 trees to the north side.
#10. Mr. Hoar said they will comply with the stormwater requirements. They have a
geotechnological expert on site, and they will provide a letter from him.
#11. Mr. Hoar confirmed that there are no building-mounted lights or illuminated
panels.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-045 until 18 October 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
8. Continued site plan application #SP-22-022 of UVM Medical Center to construct a
one-and-a-half story, 84,006 sq. ft. medical office and outpatient facility with
associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing
undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive:
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding restricting the remaining land from future development, Ms. Keene asked
if the board feels further restriction is necessary in light of all the easements. Ms. Henderson-
King said there is no physical room for further development. Ms. Keene showed a plan and
indicated the unencumbered land. She said this could be handled with a condition in the
motion. Members voiced no objection to that.
#2. Regarding the possibility of a short “spur” from the rec path to the building, Ms.
Keene showed the location of the rec path on the plan. She also noted that the path also
connects to Hinesburg Road and Williston. Staff feels the path shouldn’t end at the parking lot.
Ms. Keene suggested possible places for a connection. Ms. Henderson-King noted a plan
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
submitted today indicating the Green Mountain Power easement. She said the area Ms. Keene
indicated has a very steep grade. There is a connection from the path to Tilley Drive and also a
sidewalk. Ms. Henderson-King said they feel this is sufficient. Mr. Kochman noted a little brick
path between the diocese building and Rice High School that is quite charming. It is just a foot
path, about 3 feet wide. Mr. Kelty noted that any path would terminate in a parking lot. Mr.
Albrecht said he felt the applicant should have discretion over this. He didn’t want electric
bikes zooming through the parking lot. Ms. Leban said she felt having a different pavement
connection to the parking lot would be acceptable. Even a gravel path would be better than
mud. Mr. Kelty was OK with that.
#3. Regarding adding screening to the parking in front of the building on the Old Farm
Road frontage, Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated the area. She noted that because of
the wetland and easements, the Board allowed parking in this area. Ms. Henderson-King said
they did add landscaping. Ms. Keene said staff will confirm this before the decision is written.
#4. Board members were OK with the pocket park serving as an amenity.
#5. Regarding removal of trees from the wetland buffer, Ms. Henderson-King noted the
buffer is in front of the building. In order to address neighbors’ concerns and meet buffer
requirements, the have put additional landscaping in the buffer area. She added that it is a
Class 3 wetland with very little functional value. Mr. Kelty said plantings will be compatible
with wetland. If those species don’t work, they will replace them. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said all
species are native and will increase the ecological value of the wetland. Ms. Keene read from
the regulations. Ms. Henderson-King noted there is a stipulation to allow for modification. Ms.
Keene noted that since a modification has been made to allow the wetland buffer, the planting
would be allowed.
An un-numbered staff comment related to BFJ’s recommendations for traffic analysis.
Mr. Mack said he has a few disagreements with the BFJ report. He felt there will be people
from this project walking to the Red Barn Deli for lunch, etc., and that internal capturing will
occur here and should result in a modest credit (either 7% or 3% depending which peak hour is
used). BFJ also recommending eliminating the 3% TDM supply management credit. Mr. Mack
felt this did not make sense as he felt the credit is applicable to this medical use. Mr. Mack
suggested a total for trip ends of 119. Members expressed no objection to this.
#6. The Board was asked to discuss whether to require the applicant to provide a
connection to a future planned roadway. Ms. Keene showed the location of the potential road
and also the proposed driveway. She also showed where the applicant proposes a connection
and asked whether that connection should be more direct instead of via Barn Road. Ms.
Henderson-King cited the difficulty of the grade as the reason for their choice. Ms. Philibert
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
noted that staff’s idea for a connection would dump traffic into the parking lot, which is what
they are trying to avoid. Ms. Mann felt the applicant’s plan works. Members voiced no
objections.
#7. The applicant was asked to provide clarity in several areas. Ms. Henderson-King
noted the “blue light” is a security light which can be activated by someone in trouble. They
may not use them on this site because no security is proposed. These lights are used all over
campus. Mr. Kochman said lighting is not the function of these lights. Members voiced no
objection. Ms. Henderson-King said the other 2 issues have been addressed: the shading has
been removed and the incorrect property owner’s name has been removed.
#8. Regarding the size of the landscaped islands, Ms. Henderson-King said they have
presented a plan that shows they are at 11% which meets the standard.
#9. Regarding shade trees, Ms. Keene noted the number of trees has been met, but the
spaces has not. Ms. Henderson-King said they are trying to be responsive to neighbors’
concerns. Ms. Keene said there are no trees to the west of the parking area, just shrubbery.
Mr. Kelty said the neighbors want to preserve their views of the mountains. Ms. Keene said the
standard is about shading for the parking lot, not about views. Mr. Albrecht said it is nice to be
accommodating, but the standard is the standard. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said he felt they could
find a space for 3 trees that don’t encumber the neighbors’ views.
#10. Regarding landscape cost, Ms. Henderson-King said they have provided an updated
cost sheet for all plantings. The number still doesn’t meet the requirement. She suggested 2
options: adjust the overall cost of the construction so it is equalized with other buildings costs
or include some specialty landscaping items such as granite benches in the pocket park, pavers
in the staff area and the stone seating wall. Either approach would meet the amount required.
Members agreed to consider this in their deliberations.
#11. Regarding the front yard meadow, Ms. Henderson-King showed elevations with a
view from the front with the meadow in front. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said they would brushhog the
area once a year. Members voiced no objections to this.
#12. Previously addressed.
#13. Ms. Keene noted that the Public Works Director and Stormwater Director disagree
on whether to approve the permeable pavers. Mr. Read said they applied for a stormwater
discharge permit. There is no space to provide for overflow which is why they went with the
permeable pavers. They will capture stormwater. Ms. Keene said Mr. DiPietro cited instances
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 SEPTEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
where these pavers have failed because the product being produced in Vermont is not
adequate. Ms. Keene suggested having Mr. Read get together with staff to work this out.
#14 and #15 were confirmed.
#16. Staff questioned whether there is adequate screening for the large pieces of
equipment. Ms. Henderson-King said there are evergreens on the east property line which will
provide screening. Other equipment is below the level of the neighbors and would not be seen.
Members voiced no objection to the screening.
Public comment was then solicited. A neighbor noted that the southeast corner of his lot is
very wet. Regarding trees closest to Old Farm Road, he said he thought there is infrastructure
under that area (a drain), and he wanted to be sure there were no trees planted over it.
Ms. Henderson-King asked for the site plan to be approved for a year instead of 6 months. Ms.
Keene noted that there is an automatic year extension to the 6 months and asked if 18 months
is sufficient. Mr. Keelty said it seems OK.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue SP-22-022 until 18 October. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
9. Minutes of 6 July 2022:
Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2022 as presented. Mr. Behr seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. 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 10:00 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, 6
October 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. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S.
Wyman
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review
Planner 1, B. & T. Jackson, S. Levine, C. Orben, Y. Feng, M. Collins, D. Marshall, A. Gill, S.
Homsted.
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and explained remote
participation.
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 site plan application #SP-22-020 of Naegly & Chase Construction to
construct a single story, 21,790 sf office building, create 2,160 sf of outdoor
storage, and associated site improvements:
Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Marshall noted the project is half the size of what was originally proposed, so it would fit.
He showed the plan.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 2
#1. Regarding building height, staff is asking for the height to be measured from the pre-
construction grade prior to close of the hearing. The applicant will comply.
#2. Regarding the front yard setback, staff noted the applicant is requesting to go from
50 feet to 30 feet. Mr. Marshall said they are trying to balance building the building closer to
the street and the requirement for open space. Mr. Albrecht noted that this plan maximizes
the open space at the rear of the parcel. Mr. Behr said all the other buildings in the area have
50 foot setbacks, so this would be changing the character of the area, but since it is a
commercial property, he is OK with it. Other members did not voice any objections.
#3. Regarding the snippet park, Mr. Marshall said they will bring this back to the
landscape architect and come back with a corrected version.
#4. Regarding connecting the project to existing city sewer out of the Class 2 wetland.
Ms. Philibert asked if this is possible. Mr. Marshall said it is possible.
#5. Regarding trip generation and the traffic impact fee, Mr. Marshall said they will ask
their consultant to update the traffic information and work this out with staff. He noted that
the original traffic impact study was developed for the 21,000 sf building. The PM peak hour
trip end generation was revised to reflect the elimination of the office space and downsizing of
the contractor’s yard.
#6. Re: aligning the driveway with the driveway on the other side of the street, Mr.
Marshall said there aren’t a lot of aligned driveways in this area. All traffic will be focused to
the west side of the lot. The other challenge involves the loading dock which contractors have
to access. Mr. Marshall said he was comfortable that there won’t be high levels of traffic to
necessitate alignment. Mr. Kochman said the LDR language says “feasible and functional to
have them aligned,” and staff says it is. Ms. Mann said the loading dock could be a reason to
honor the applicant’s request. Mr. Kochman said “feasible” is a hard standard to overcome.
Mr. Albrecht asked if there is a maximum width allowed for a curb cut. Ms. Keene was not
sure. Mr. Albrecht said this is a commercial area. If the applicant widened the curb cut more to
the north, the driveways could be aligned. That would also make it easier to plow. Mr.
Marshall said that could be very practical but it could affect the maximum lot coverage. He
added that if they had long frontage there, it wouldn’t be an issue. Ms. Keene said widening
the curb cut is not a feasible solution. Mr. Albrecht said he had a problem with letting a
driveway determine the project. He argued in favor of the applicant’s design. Ms. Keene said
as it is drawn, trucks are backing up on the street. What staff proposes has trucks backing up
off the street (she showed this on the plan). Mr. Marshall said he would get back to staff on
this.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 3
#7. Regarding dumpster screening, Mr. Marshall directed the Board’s attention to the
sheet with the design that will comply.
#8. Staff noted that the draft easement document will be needed prior to closing. Mr.
Marshall said they will do this.
#9. No issue was raised.
#10. Staff noted that one more long-term bike storage/locker is needed. Mr. Marshall
said they will provide this.
#11. Staff noted the need for street trees. Mr. Marshall said they will do this.
#12. Staff is asking for more diverse tree species. Mr. Marshall said they will comply.
#13. Regarding snow storage, Mr. Marshall said he will make sure all plans are
consistent with this.
#14. Staff asked the applicant to provide project cost and values of each landscape
element. Mr. Marshall said they will provide this.
#15. Staff noted that one proposed light is not shielded/downcast. Mr. Marshall said he
forgot to eliminate that light.
#16. Staff questioned how the roof will comply with the standard. Mr. Marshall said this
will be part of the resubmitted package.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Mann moved to continue SP-22-020 until 1 November 2022. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board.
6. Continued final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to crease a
planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three
single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to
consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 4
duplex and three-family dwellings on eleven lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen
commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped
or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road:
Ms. Philibert advised that she owns property in the Hillside development but felt she could hear
the application impartially.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. The Board was asked whether they would allow one-story buildings. Mr. Gill said all
buildings are planned to be 2+ stories, but he indicated on the plan the buildings which they
feel would be better as 1 or 1-1/2 stories as they are on higher ground. There could be a small
grocery story or an area for neighborhood services (e.g., dry cleaner). Mr. Kochman asked why
were 2 stories required. Mr. Gill said the Board was focusing more on the ones along the road.
Ms. Philibert asked if there can be one-story buildings. Ms. Keene said there can. There is a
limit to retail square footage as this is intended to be a mixed use area. Mr. Kochman said Mr.
Gill’s rational is reasonable and he would allow it. Other members agreed. Ms. Philibert noted
staff’s comments about relocation of the utility cabinet. Mr. Gill said that is done.
#2. Regarding tree spacing, staff noted that the applicant is requesting to go to 40-foot
spacing. Mr. Gill said they had originally showed 40 feet, and the whole Hillside neighborhood
is 40 feet. The final plat said 30 feet, but all of the digital renderings are at 40 feet. Ms.
Philibert said she was OK with the spacing at Hillside. Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated
what 40 feet and 30 feet would look like. Mr. Gill said it would cost $200,000 to go to 30 feet
now. He added that they already exceed the landscape budget, and 40 feet looks good. Mr.
Behr had no objection and noted his neighborhood is a 50 and 60 feet. Ms. Orben said they
have 7 or 8 different types of street trees, a good variety.
#3. Staff questioned whether additional landscaping is needed near the dog park. Ms.
Keene said landscaping there might not be long-lived. She recommended waiving the
requirement. Members voiced no objection.
#4. Staff noted there is no curbing in the barn area and felt there needs to be a solution
to protect landscaping and to protect pedestrians. Mr. Gill said they would appreciate waiving
the curbing. There will be a cement sidewalk with a transition to the gravel parking lot. They
wanted it to feel more relaxed than a curb with a sidewalk. They will look at something like
boulders as a protection.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 5
#5. Staff questioned whether foundation plantings are necessary. Ms. Keene noted the
applicant has proposed plantings all around the building, and they would have to be maintained
forever. Staff is asking that homeowners be allowed to change the plantings around the
foundation if they so choose. Staff is OK if the homes are sold without foundation plantings.
Mr. Kochman noted that the regulations say that foundation plantings can be varied. He was
OK with that.
#6. Staff noted that the front setback requirement is 10 feet. Open porches and/or
decks of less than 12 feet in depth are allowed to encroach into the front setback up to 5 feet.
Staff recommends a waiver within the residential area of side and rear setbacks to 5 feet. Staff
also recommends a condition that for street-facing garages there be enough room between the
face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full-sized car without overhanging the sidewalk.
Mr. Gill questioned what happens with 2 front yards. Ms. Keen said the regulations allow
waiving down to 5 feet, but that doesn’t mean it should be done. Mr. Gills said if a buyer chose
a particular footprint, a porch could stick out more. Ms. Keene asked how close they will allow
homes to be. Mr. Homested said they would be OK with 5 feet on just the questionable units.
Mr. Gill didn’t feel that would look odd at the corners. Mr. Kochman said he liked 10 feet
except for those where there could be an exception. Members were OK with this. Regarding
porches, Mr. Gill said they were looking for the Board to say that a deck could be turned into a
sunroom. Ms. Keene said that would not be allowed if the porch is within the 5 feet. Mr. Gill
said they were good with that.
#7. Regarding the turn lane, staff recommends the Board discuss and provide Public
Works the opportunity consider and provide feedback. Mr. Gill said the turn lane is not making
the road wider; it is just changing striping. The suggestion is not to put a turn lane in till a later
time, but Mr. Gill said they want to get it in early for safety sake. He said they could talk to
Public Works about it. Their traffic consultant (Roger Dickinson) says to do it immediately. Ms.
Philibert said she has heard that turning lanes cause problems. Mr. Kochman said he needs to
know what is wrong with that. Members wanted more information before making a decision.
#8. Regarding the modification of the Old Farm Road/Hinesburg Road intersection, Mr.
Gill said this was in the original traffic study prior to the revision due to reduced trip ends. They
were told to pare it back. They will not modify the intersection.
#9. Mr. Gill said the numerical information regarding the wetland buffer was sent to
staff today.
#10. Staff asked the meaning of the dotted line/shaded area. Ms. Orben said the dotted
line is where you can mow, and the shaded area is the stone area of the path. Staff asked the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 6
applicant to confirm the dog park parking area is curbed. Mr. Gill said they will have curbing
there. He also noted there are not 2 curb cuts on the east side of Old Farm Road between
Kimball Avenue and Old Farm Road.
#11. Staff noted the landscape plan shows additional lines on Old Farm Road toward the
north end. Mr. Gill said those lines are gone. He noted a 60-foot right-of-way that was added.
They hope it can stay private. Ms. Keene said the city doesn’t want that road. There will be a
condition that it remain private.
Regarding height, Mr. Gill said they would like the Board to say they approve of what is show on
the plan. They will provide height on every elevation. Two-story houses should be able to be
built on the lots they’re proposed to be built on. Mr. Kochman said they are discussing height
as a policy matter. Mr. Gill said the site is a hillside with different grades. He questioned how
that related to pre-construction grade. Ms. Keene said the problem is a surfeit of information.
Mr. Gill suggested they provide a lot by lot analysis and suggest where there might be a
modification needed. Ms. Keene felt that is doable. Members were OK with that.
#12. And #13. Staff noted the applicant proposes to achieve a 4-bedroom unit by
providing a finished basement. Mr. Gill said every home will have an egress window in the
basement. The question is the income qualification of the person buying the unit. If they can
only qualify for a 3-bedroom unit and there is a commitment to a 4-bedroom unit, they could
be in a bind. The basement solves that problem. The unit can be sold as a 3 bedroom, even
though the buyer qualifies for a 4- bedroom. Mr. Kochman said he was inclined to go along
with what Mr. Gill is saying. Ms. Keene asked what the Board wants to know about inclusionary
units. Ms. Wyman asked what happens if a unit is sold as 3-bedroom and down the road
becomes 4-bedroom. Mr. Kochman said “so what?” Ms. Keene said you can put on an addition
once it is sold to you. Mr. Gill said they want to offer and sell what is allowed.
#14. Regarding noise from blasting, Mr. Gill said he talked with the engineer. He said
the reason they don’t talk about the noise from blasting is that the impacts were below the
ambient levels to homes on Old Farm Road. They didn’t look at blasting noise itself; it is the
pressure vibration. They did look at those impacts, and they are below the industry standard.
Ms. Philibert asked if the ledge that Old Farm Road homes back up to will be impacted by
vibration. Mr. Gill said they engaged a person to look into this. They have taken as responsible
a stance as they can and doubt there will be damage to land outside the blast zone. Mr. Stern
asked how “continuous” is defined. Mr. Gill said their sound report gets into the weeds on that.
They looked at the entire site for noise for Act 250. In the analysis, it was in the reals of 10 days
that there would be sound above 55 db. They are willing to submit the full noise report. Ms.
Keene noted Hillside has handled blasting very well. Staff got 3 or 4 phone calls, and then they
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 7
stopped. She felt the O’Briens handled it well though there have been problems on other
projects. Ms. Philibert asked if they would be using the rock crusher. Mr. Gill said they will, but
with road and traffic noise, you couldn’t hear it.
#15. Regarding removal of dust outside the approval area, Mr. Gill said they can be
open to that if there is a dust event. They never had an issue with Hillside. He added that they
inspect for dust and report to the State. Members felt a condition in the approval was not
necessary.
#16. Regarding with compliance with the city’s policy on erosion control methods, the
applicant will talk with staff on this.
#17. Regarding the duration of blasting days, Mr. Gill said they will be completed over
the winter. This could be in 2 phases over the entirety of the project. He added that it is better
to blast in winter.
#18. The applicant confirmed that there will be no work before 7 a.m. and no work on
federal holidays. Ms. Keene said staff would prefer a 9 a.m.-4 p.m. schedule. Mr. Gill thought
they can do that.
#19. Regarding a plan for management of construction vehicles, Mr. Gill said there is a
construction road up to the construction site. They also have stabilized paths (he indicated the
road from Kimball Ave. to the project site). Ms. Keene asked if there is any information
regarding timing. Mr. Gills said some of it will happen right away – along proposed roads – until
the houses are built. The haul road would be there till they are almost complete. There are a
couple of homes that can’t be built with that road there. The road will be in place till the
infrastructure is built. Mr. Gill added that they will not cut down a wooded area where they are
not approved for building.
#20. Staff asked the applicant to describe how material will be removed. Mr. Gills aid no
hole will be left. They propose a surety for restoration of the area.
#21. Staff is asking for a condition that a staging area be restored no more than 18
months after the most recent zoning permit for approved homes. Mr. Gill said they may want
to use a staging area for some of the commercial buildings. Ms. Keene said they can ask for
that. The city just doesn’t want a staging area there for 15 years. Mr. Gill said it could be there
for a number of years or disappear quickly if someone wants to use a large piece of land. They
were OK if staff wants to review this after 150 homes are built.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 8
#22. The applicant agreed to no blasting or stone crushing between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
#23. Staff noted that Public Works was OK with a $50,000 surety bond for restoration.
#24. Regarding the percentage of roofs to be oriented for optimum solar gain, staff
asked whether there should be a condition that no more than 20% of homes not be oriented
for solar. Mr. Albrecht felt that was unnecessary because of the previous findings at
Preliminary Plat. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Gill said they are committed to energy efficiency and
will have electric vehicle hookup and will be enrolled in the Energy Star Program. All roofs are
already oriented where they are oriented. Some lots run with the contour of the land.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-10 to 15 November. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
7. 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 10:00 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on _________________________
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 NOVEMBER 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1
November 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, S. Wyman
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; L. Bailey
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:
There were no announcements.
5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-22-020 of Naegley & Chase Construction to
construct a single story 21,790 sq. ft. office building, create 2,160 sq. ft. of outdoor
storage, and associated site improvements, 39 Bowdoin Street:
Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Keene advised that the applicant has asked to continue to 15 November.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-020 until 15 November 2022. Mr. Kochman seconded.
Motion passed 5-0
6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-22-032 of UVM Medical Center to construct a
one-and-a-half story, 84,006 sq. ft. medical office and outpatient facility with
associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing
undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board.
Ms. Keene advised that the applicant has asked for a continuation as they need more time to
discuss the plans with the neighbor. She said that even though that agenda is full, this should
be only a 10-minute conversation. She also advised that a note was received from CWD
regarding landscaping in an area that concerns them. This is an Act 250 issue, not the DRB’s, at
this late in the application.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-032 until 15 November. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
7. Minutes of 18 October 2022:
Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 18 October 2022 as written. Ms. Mann
seconded. Motion passed 6-0
8. Other Business:
Ms. Keene asked members if they were OK with the proposed 2023 schedule. No objections
were voiced.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 7:18 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ____________