Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2023-10-03 DRB Minutes DRAFTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 3, 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 3, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, J. Moscatelli ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; W. Eldred, P. Eldred, C. Colovos, G. Michaels, S. Dopp, L. Hickey, J. Boisvert. D. Twitchell, M. Gething, M. Boucher, A. Marquis, M. Lipson, K. Easton, T. Easton, G. Titcomb, M. Weissman, A. Glaser, J. Bellavance, B. Shearer, M. Turner, A. Jones, M. Sherman, J. Larkin, R. Payson, P. Jones, Nicholas, S. Behar, S. Zjakic, E. Suljanovic, L. Murphy, Paul, Shane, D. Seff, I. Gillies, Cheryl, Joanna, K. Brunette 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: The City Council is advertising for a DRB member. 5. Master Plan sketch plan application #SD-23-12 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105 acre lot developed with two single family home and 6 unoccupied or accessory structures. The master plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately 1 acre to abutters, and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single family to twelve units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 2 Mr. Kochman recused himself from this application due to conflicting interests. Ms. Keene noted that Ms. Wyman also believes she will have to be recused. Mr. Farrell reviewed the history of the property. His cousin currently owns 105 acres. There had been an inn on the property which was destroyed by a hurricane. A previous mansion was destroyed by fire. His cousin lives in one of the existing homes and is looking for a long-term vision for the property. After reviewing the LDRs, it was thought that this is the best way to utilize the property. Mr. Farrell noted there are challenges, but the aim is to end up with a plan that meets the regulations and that his cousin and the neighbors are OK with. Mr. Boucher noted the property is behind another development. It is bounded by railroad tracks on the east and south. The west side is partially bounded by Lake Champlain and Potash Brook. On the south end, it is accessed by Holmes Road which extends to Bartlett Bay Road. A portion of that is accessed by Holmes Road Extension, a private road. Mr. Boucher then showed a map of the existing conditions. He identified the project site and the Class 3 wetlands. He also showed the location of the existing home, additional wetlands, a habitat block and the river corridor. David Farrell had originally proposed to do a 4-lot subdivision on the northern lots, but he was told this did not meet the regulations, and he began to identify other options. They looked at a Conservation PUD, but they were restricted so they could not meet the minimum density. Mr. Boucher then showed the proposed project which nests a Traditional Neighborhood Development within a Conservation PUD. The project is north of Holmes Road. There are access issues because they cannot expand the existing access road. The 3 single family lots are to the north (the existing Farrell home is one of these lots). Those lots, along with the conservation piece would be owned by the same owner. The Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) uses smart growth principles. The units include duplexes, triplexes, and multiplexes up to 12 units, and town houses. Mr. Boucher identified these units on a plan of the TND. He also noted that there will be civic space (e.g. park, benches, etc.) and a mixed us component which may be “live/work” units or “cottage commercial.” Mr. Boucher then showed an overall concept of the neighborhood. They have laid out the road outside the neighborhood and will relocate Holmes Road Extension away from the existing homes. Most traffic will be diverted away from the existing development. They have been meeting with neighbors and may come back with a revised sketch plan, depending on discussion at this meeting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 3 Mr. Farrell said the neighbors want to leave the existing road as it is and have this development use a new road. He didn’t know if this would be allowed, but he was OK with it, if it is allowed. Mr. Boucher said there is a transmission that borders the neighborhood. There was a property transaction that allows the city access all the way to Bartlett Bay Road which will provide the second required access to the development. Mr. Boucher then identified the green spaces in the neighborhood. Most of the proposed units will either front or back onto a green space. There is an opportunity for rec paths from the TND to Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Farrell showed the potential extension of the rec path north through the Velco right-of-way. On the northern piece, there is a piece of land dedicated as “park” on the Official Map. The City will have to decide whether it wants to buy that land for a park. He wanted to know what they would have to submit before it goes to the Council as they don’t want to spend a lot of money before the Council makes a decision. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Overview – this was already done. #2. Staff is suggesting a site visit. Members agreed. #3./#4. Staff is requesting a narrative description of the characteristics they are committing to carrying forward. The applicant was OK with this. #5. Staff is asking for preliminary thoughts regarding phasing. Mr. Farrell said they want to fully permit the project so they are fully vested. The south meadow part would depend on market conditions, probably very quickly. He was not sure about the 2 single-family homes. #6. Staff questioned which access roads will be retained. Mr. Farrell said the roads are historic. The intention is to retain them. They will be part of the drives to the 2 new single-family homes. They also meander through the wetland, and it would not be good to disturb them. Mr. Boucher added that the roads are taken out of the conservation calculations as is the existing drive to the existing home. The roads in the area of the former inn would be continued but would not count toward the conservation easement and would not have daily use. #7. The applicant was asked to demonstrate that the boundaries of the Conservation PUD are comparable with clustered development and protection of contiguous resource areas. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 4 Mr. Boucher said they are conserving 70% of the parcel. The 3 single family lots allow the PUD to happen. He felt that meets the intent. #8. Staff questioned whether the driveways to lots 2, 3 and 4 will adequately protect the conservations lands. Mr. Boucher said they don’t believe the driveways will disturb the conservation area. #9. The applicant was asked to describe the intent of the 3 single-family lots. Mr. Farrell said they will single family homes either for Farrell family members or others. #10. The applicant was asked how lots 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with the siting requirements for development areas. Ms. Keene said there are some natural resources that need to be taken out of those areas. Mr. Boucher said they are a part of the existing road network. They will build consistent with where previous buildings were. Mr. Farrell added that 2 of them will be where buildings stood for many decades and foundations still exist. David Farrell’s existing home is one of the 3. The other existing house will be torn down. Mr. Behr asked whether the shoreline is essentially the same as when the DRB visited some years ago. Mr. Farrell said it is. #11. The Board was asked to discuss whether they should ask for a buffer on the non- conserved part of the land. Ms. Keene said this goes along with comment #9. There is a standard for a buffer from conserved areas. It would be almost like a dedicated building area. Mr. Boucher said that is not uncommon for what is usually asked for near a wetland. Mr. Farrell said the only exception is David’s house which is close to the edge, but that is existing. #12. The applicant was asked for the vision for the TND. Mr. Boucher said they don’t think mixed use is right for this area as it is not appropriate for destination businesses. They are thinking of a possible “co-working” space in the neighborhood. Mr. Farrell said they don’t want to build something there is no demand for. Ms. Keene noted some allowed uses including: childcare facility, offices, indoor recreation, personal instruction, cultural facilities. She felt a co-working space makes sense. #13. The applicant was asked about improvement for the road on Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Farrell said they will do a traffic study and upgrade where identified. #14. The applicant was asked to address connectivity between neighborhoods. Mr. Boucher said there is a lot of opportunity with the Larkin development. They are open to a rec path on the west side meandering to Bartlett Bay Road. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 5 #15. The applicant was asked to describe how they will meet the requirement for local streets, emphasizing pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Farrell agreed that they will meet this requirement. #16. Staff asked about Lake access as a civic space. Mr. Farrell said the only way this will happen is if the City wants to acquire the land. Only the 3 single family homes will have Lake access. Time did not allow the remaining staff comments to be discussed. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Eldred: Queen City Park resident. He would like an estimate of the total population and use of the roads. Ms. Keene said Public Works is looking into road use. Ms. Lipson: She was concerned with habitat and wetland issues. She noted that residents have deeded access to Holmes Road, and the road can’t be changed unless they agree. Ms. Michaels: Was concerned with wildlife conservation and how it will be addressed. Mr. Gillies said concerns regarding habitat can be addressed to staff. Ms. Easton: Lives on Holmes Road and does not want their neighborhood to be “cast aside.” They have had 2 meetings with Mr. Farrell and recognize that some kind of fundamental change is coming. They hope it will have a positive result. Mr. Easton: Believes in the rights of property owners to develop and improve their land within the laws. The developer has an obligation not to be offensive. His concerns are that Holmes Rd. stay as it is and that the environmental impact be addressed. Lisa Hickey: Asked if the capacity for this development is built into the new sewer system. Ms. Keene said it is. The question of school capacity was also raised. Ms. Philibert said the City Council is dialed into that. Ms. Keene noted that the school district people ask for numbers and there is coordination. Mr. Twitchell: The Farrells are great neighbors. Realizes changes will happen and hopes they can continue to work together. Mr. Glazer: Wants Holmes Road to remain as it is. Appreciates Mr. Farrell talking with them. Would appreciate more of a buffer between the old and new neighborhoods. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 6 Mr. Titcomb: Main concern is Holmes Road. It is mainly an industrial road with a lot of use. He didn’t think it could handle more traffic. The 2 closest businesses are car dealerships. Since this is the first Conservation PUD, he wanted it to be done right. Ms. Dopp: There is a lot she likes but wishes it could be smaller and could run north/south so it wouldn’t block the migration route. She hoped the Natural Resources Committee will have input. Ms. Keene noted the floodplain will be part of the conservation area. Mr. Clovis: Concerns about wildlife. Selma Zjakic: Would like to meet with the applicant. Mr. Sherman: Mr. Farrell is known as a considerate developer. There is a need for housing, but they also have to consider traffic and wildlife. There are often safety issues on the road, and he was concerned with potentially 200 more cars. He noted that their child couldn’t get into an after school program because of school population. Questioned whether compressing such a big development into a small space is desirable. Megan Gelping: Concerns about forest being removed. Following public comments, DRB members agreed to have a site visit on Wednesday, 1 November, at noon. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-23-12 to 7 November. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Kochman rejoined the Board. 6. Continued 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: Ms. Keene explained the process. The interested parties were then identified and included the appellants, Adam Jones (Proprietor of Meyers Bagels), Joe Larkin (landowner of 408 Shelburne Road that Mr. Jones leases) and Liam Murphy, attorney for the appellants. Mr. Gillies then reviewed the events leading up to his decision. Mr. Payson had expressed concern regarding smoke from Meyers Bagels wood smoke grill. The property had received a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 7 zoning permit in October 2022, and the permit was not appealed at that time. Mr. Gillies noted that on 7 July 2023, he performed a site visit. He located the chimney, then drove to a spot near the Payson house. He observed no odors and emissions that were in opposition to the regulations. He therefore declared there was no deviation from the standard. He invited Mr. Payson to submit more evidence but did not hear from him until the appeal was filed. No other people have complained. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Gillies if he doubted the appellant’s statement that there is an odor. Mr. Gillies said he does not doubt it, but he was unable to detect it. Mr. Kochman said if there is an odor, there should be a secondary safeguard system. Mr. Murphy said this is an awkward situation. Mr. Gillies’ inspection was done one day out of 365 days of operation. The appeal was filed because the appellants would be bound by the decision forever. Whether there is smoke/odor depends on which way the wind is blowing. The smoke is also a concern. Mr. Murphy then showed a portion of a letter send to the EPA by Attorneys Generals of the intent to sue regarding emissions from wood smoke. The letter speaks to the negative effects of wood smoke on public health including cardio-vascular issues. Mr. Murphy said many cities have begun requiring minimizing of wood smoke emissions by using off the shelf filters. He showed a picture of the smoke chimney and pointed out the blackness where the smoke comes out. He also showed a picture of a unit at a Burlington pizza place which alleviates that problem. The appellant wants the owner to install something like that unit. Mr. Kochman noted the LDRs say the business shall be subject to state and local regulations. He asked if there are such regulations. Mr. Payson then showed a video of the smoke coming from the chimney to their house. He said when the wind is from the west, this is what happens. They can’t keep windows open on nice days. He felt they shouldn’t have to deal with this. When they raised the issue with the owner in February, he ignored them and told their attorney it was the Payson’s problem to fix. Mr. Payson also noted the chimney should be cleaned once a month, and it isn’t. Mr. Behr noted that they were getting off the purpose of the hearing. The issue isn’t whether there is a violation but whether there was a violation when Mr. Gillies visited the property and made his determination. He questioned how the board deals with the appeal and whether there is a violation based on evidence the board has seen tonight. Ms. Brunette questioned why they weren’t informed when the business changed from gas to wood fire. She said the result has been life-altering for them. They never had a problem before, and now they can’t enjoy their property. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 OCTOBER 2023 PAGE 8 Mr. Jones said they have not been ignoring the problem. He has owned the business for 12 years and went through all the channels to build this. They have been in business only since April. He said any burned products create emissions. He questioned whether the city requires permits for someone to use a woodburning stove to heat their home or to have a fireplace. He added that smoke emanates, but it disperses. It is the smell that is the complaint. Mr. Jones said he spoke to 4 different chimney companies about this. They all said there is nothing to do about the smell. You can stop the smoke, but the smell will continue. The owner of the previous business on that site said they never had a complaint. Mr. Jones said the item on top of the chimney that was in the picture is a fan to disburse the smoke. It does not clean the smoke. It may or may not help with the smell, but that is not what it is designed to do. Mr. Kochman said if the smoke is directed elsewhere, the smell will go with it. In principle, that sounds easy. Mr. Larkin said they have not ignored the issue and are willing to take direction as given. Mr. Murphy suggested they try an air disperser and see if it works. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close the hearing. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Keene said the Board will deliberate and inform the appellants of the decision. 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 8:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.