Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_2023-09-06 DRB Minutes DRAFT 1 of 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 6 September 2023, 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, F. Kochman, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Senior Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; M. & R. Manning; E. Sample, E. Hendley, D. Marshall, L. Murphy, F. Sadowski, C. Douglass, M. Aloisi 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-23-01 of Robert Payson and Kathy Brunette (17 Apple Tree Court, Burlington) appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer that there is no performance standard violation at 480 Shelburne Road; It was noted that the applicants have asked for a continuance until 3 October. Mr. Kochman moved to continue AO-23-01 until 3 October 2023. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-23-01 of Consentino and Manning to construct a two-story addition to an existing single family home. The addition is proposed to be set back 3 ft. 2-1/2 inches from the side lot line, 11 White Place: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 PAGE 2 2 of 5 Ms. Aloisi noted that based on DRB comments, they have removed the porch over the ramp on the front, and the stair from the porch to the east and added an awning over the basement step. They have reduced lot coverage and provided a survey drawing. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff has noted that the survey drawing does not appear to be a survey, and it is not stamped by a surveyor. The applicant said this is the same surveyor who did the lot next door, and it is the same kind of drawing they had for their conditional use. Mr. Kochman said there is a statute as to what constitutes a legal survey. It should also be recorded. Ms. Aloisi said they can take the word “draft” off the plan. She said that if filing is not required in the LDRs, they don’t need to file it. Ms. Keene said it needs to be recorded only if there is a subdivision. Mr. Behr said the applicant should ask the surveyor to remove the “disclaimers.” The DRB just needs to know that what is being provided is accurate, a “certified boundary survey.” Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Both Mr. Behr and Ms. Philibert said this was a very attractive project. Mr. Kochman moved to close CU-23-01. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-035 of Eric Sample to subdivide an existing 1.37 acre lot developed with a single family home and detached accessory dwelling unit into two lots of 1.00 acres and 0.37 acres, for the purpose of establishing the existing single family home and accessory unit on Lot 1, and constructing a new single family home on Lot 2, 25 and 55 Highland Terrace: Mr. Sample showed an overview of the location. He said their intent is to carve off a separate piece of the property. They have no intention to build on that piece at this time. He then showed a lot plan. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted that when the applicant submitted their application, they contemplated a 3-lot subdivision. Now they are proposing only 2 lots. Members were OK with that. #2. The applicant was asked to provide that the driveway configuration is adequate. Mr. Sample said they are not averse to combining driveways, but they don’t want the driveway on DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 PAGE 3 3 of 5 the crowded corner. They want it to the east so it doesn’t get in the way of the neighbor’s driveway. He showed that location on the drawing and said they want to keep the aesthetics of the lot. If they do build on the new lot later on for a home for their children, they want to maintain the character. He added that it would be a small house. Ms. Keene noted that the property is not served by municipal water. She noted there will be some LDR changes down the road regarding water due to Act 47. It is not yet known whether this property would be involved and could require increased density. The applicant will also have to attest that there is adequate water capacity which will require an engineer’s report. Mr. Sample said they did an entire water plan. Wells would not be a problem. They will discuss this with their engineer and have him demonstrate that water is available. #3. Regarding orientation of the building, staff is recommending the building face east. Mr. Sample said they want it to face south because all the other buildings face that way. Mr. Kochman said that makes sense. #4. This item was previously addressed. #5. Staff noted that the regulations now require street improvements, and the applicant was asked if they would be willing to add street trees. Mr. Sample said that would be no problem. They have already planted a number of trees. #6. Staff asked whether this should be considered a simple subdivision or whether a master plan should be required. Members agreed it was a simple subdivision. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Keene noted the completed application is due 4 weeks before it is scheduled and should include everything required under a simple subdivision. 8. Continued Preliminary and Final Plan #SD-23-11 of Casey Douglass to amend a previously approved 5.52 acre, 6 unit, planned unit development. The amendment consists of subdividing Lot 6, developed with a single family home and barn, into 2 lots of 0.69 acres (Lot 6A) and 0.60 acres (Lot 6B) for the purpose of demolishing the existing single family home and barn and constructing a new single family dwelling on each lot, 1200 Dorset Street: Mr. Marshall said he believed they have addressed all of staff’s concerns. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 PAGE 4 4 of 5 #1. The applicant was asked to respond to Public Works comments. Mr. Marshall said he sent a detailed package to Mr. DiPietro. They have also indicated on the plan the location of the force main and tie-in to the city system. It runs up the east side of Dorset St. then back of the Heald house (in order to save a tree). #2. The application was asked to address comments of the Water Superintendent. Mr. Gillies said this can be a condition of approval. Mr. Marshall said they have a gravel wetland which provides treatment and meets the State regulations. He showed the location on the plan and explained how it works. #3. Staff asked for a condition of approval requiring roof line to maximize solar potential. Mr. Marshall said they are fine with that. #4. Mr. Marshall said they have provided a narrative of features to reinforce what is to be included (see #3). Mr. Kochman asked about screening of the backs of houses from Dorset St. Mr. Marshall said there are existing trees to be retained, but there will be no attempt to hide the building as the aim was for communication with the rec path. #5. The applicant was asked to add some features to make the backs of houses look more like the fronts. Mr. Marshall said there are features they want to include. They also have different roof lines to break up the mass of building. Ms. Keene said there could be a condition that what is represented here for windows not be reduced by more than 5%. Some characteristics can be written into the motion (she showed the list of requirements drafted by Staff). Mr. Kochman suggested adding minimum glazing requirements. Ms. Keene said that and roof line variation can be added. Mr. Behr suggested a 15% deviation be allowed. Members voiced no objection to that. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli moved to close SD-23-11. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Minutes of 1 August 2023: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 1 August 2023 as presented. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2023 PAGE 5 5 of 5 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:05 p.m. These minutes were approved on ____.